“I emphasize especially that Operational Orders Number 8 and 14
as well as the appendix are to be destroyed immediately in the
case of immediate danger.”
I shall finish my reading and now I shall only mention the distribution
list. On Page 2 I quote the part concerning Smolensk. It says here that
in Smolensk the Einsatzgruppe “B” was located, consisting of Special
Commands 7a, 7b, 8, and 9; and in addition to this, there was already
located in Smolensk a special command, which had been rather prematurely
named “Moscow” by its organizers.
These are the contents of the document, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal directs that the whole document shall be
translated. We will now recess until 5 minutes past 2 o’clock.
[_The Tribunal recessed until 1405 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I have no more questions to put
to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer.
DR. STAHMER: Witness, do you know who owned that little castle near the
Dnieper before the occupation by German troops? Who owned it, who lived
there?
VON EICHBORN: I cannot say that for certain. We noticed that the little
castle was astonishingly well furnished. It was very well laid out. It
had two bathrooms, a rifle range, and a cinema. We drew certain
conclusions therefrom, when the facts became known, but I do not know
anything about the previous owner.
DR. STAHMER: The Russian Prosecutor submitted to you a document dated 29
October 1941, “Directives to the Chief of the Sipo for the Detachments
in the Stalags.” With reference to that document, I want to ask you
whether you had an opportunity personally to ascertain the attitude of
Field Marshal Kluge, your commander of Army Group Center, regarding the
shooting of prisoners of war?
VON EICHBORN: By chance I became the ear-witness of a conversation
between the Commanders Bock and Kluge. That conversation took place
about 3 or 4 weeks before the beginning of the Russian campaign. I
cannot tell you the exact time. At the time Field Marshal Von Bock was
the commander of Army Group Center, and Field Marshal Von Kluge was
commander of the 4th Army. The army group was in Posen and the 4th Army
at Warsaw. One day I was called by the aide-de-camp of Field Marshal Von
Beck, who was Lieutenant Colonel Count Hardenberg. He gave me the
order...
THE PRESIDENT: These details are entirely irrelevant, aren’t they. All
you want to ask him is: What was the attitude of Von Kluge? That is all.
DR. STAHMER: The answer did not come through. I did not understand what
you said, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: What I said was that all these details about the
particular place where Von Kluge met some other army group commander are
utterly irrelevant. All you are trying to ask him is: What was Von
Kluge’s attitude toward the murder of war prisoners? Isn’t that all?
DR. STAHMER: Yes.
[_Turning to the witness._] Will you answer the question briefly,
Witness. Please just tell us what Von Kluge said.
VON EICHBORN: Von Kluge told Von Bock, during a telephone conversation,
that the order for the shooting of certain prisoners of war was an
impossibility and could not be carried out, with regard to the
discipline of the troops. Von Bock shared this point of view and both
these gentlemen talked for half an hour about the measures which they
wanted to adopt against this order.
DR. STAHMER: According to the allegations of the Prosecution, the
shooting of these 11,000 Polish officers is supposed to have been
carried out sometime in September 1941. The question now is: Do you
consider it possible, in view of local conditions, that such mass
shootings and burials could have been carried out next door to the
regimental headquarters without you yourself having heard about it?
VON EICHBORN: We were very busy in preparation for the move of the army
group to Smolensk. We had assigned a great number of signal troops for
setting up perfect installations. On the entire site there was a
constant going and coming of troops laying cables and telephone lines.
It is out of the question that anything of this kind could have occurred
in that particular area without the regiment and I getting knowledge of
it.
DR. STAHMER: I have no further questions to put to the witness, Mr.
President.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, before calling my third witness, Lieutenant
General Oberhäuser, may I ask your permission to make the following
remarks?
The Prosecution has up to now only alleged that Regiment Number 537 was
the one which had carried out these shootings and that under Colonel
Ahrens’ command. Today again, Colonel Ahrens has been named by the
Prosecution as being the perpetrator. Apparently this allegation has
been dropped and it has been said that if it was not Ahrens then it must
have been his predecessor, Colonel Bedenck; and if Colonel Bedenck did
not do it, then apparently—and this seems to be the third version—it
was done by the SD. The Defense had taken the position solely that
Colonel Ahrens was accused as the perpetrator and it has refuted that
allegation. Considering the changed situation and the attitude adopted
by the Prosecution, I shall have to name a fourth witness in addition.
That is First Lieutenant Hodt, who has been mentioned today as the
perpetrator and who was with the regimental staff right from the
beginning and who was, as we have told, the senior of the advance party
which arrived at the Dnieper Castle in July. I got the address of First
Lieutenant Hodt by chance yesterday. He is at Glücksburg near Flensburg;
and I, therefore, ask to be allowed to name as a witness First
Lieutenant Hodt, who will give evidence that during the time between
July and September such shootings did not occur.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal will consider your application,
when they adjourn at half past 3, with reference to this extra witness.
DR. STAHMER: Yes, Sir. Then I shall now call Lieutenant General
Oberhäuser as witness.
[_The witness Oberhäuser took the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name, please?
EUGEN OBERHÄUSER (Witness): Eugen Oberhäuser.
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: General, what position did you hold during the war?
OBERHÄUSER: I was the signal commander in an army group, first of all
during the Polish campaign, in Army Group North; then, in the Western
campaign Army Group B; and then in Russia, Army Group Center.
DR. STAHMER: When did you and your staff reach the neighborhood of
Katyn?
OBERHÄUSER: Sometime during September 1941.
DR. STAHMER: Where was your staff located?
OBERHÄUSER: My staff was located in the immediate vicinity of the
commander of the army group; that is to say, about 12 kilometers west of
Smolensk, near the railroad station of Krasnibor.
DR. STAHMER: Was Regiment Number 537 under your command?
OBERHÄUSER: Regiment 537 was directly under my command.
DR. STAHMER: What task did that regiment have?
OBERHÄUSER: That regiment had the task of establishing both telegraph
and wireless communications between the command of the army group and
the various armies and other units which were directly under its
command.
DR. STAHMER: Was the staff of the regiment stationed near you?
OBERHÄUSER: The staff of that regiment was located about 3, perhaps 4
kilometers west from my own position.
DR. STAHMER: Can you give us more detailed information regarding the
exact location of the staff headquarters of Number 537?
OBERHÄUSER: The staff headquarters of 537 was in a very nice Russian
timber house. Commissars were supposed to have been living there before.
It was on the steep bank of the Dnieper River. It was somewhat off the
road, perhaps 400 to 500 meters away. It was, from my place, 4
kilometers west of the main highway Smolensk to Vitebsk.
DR. STAHMER: Who was the commanding officer of the regiment after the
capture of Smolensk?
OBERHÄUSER: After the capture of Smolensk, Colonel Bedenck was the
commander of the regiment.
DR. STAHMER: For how long?
OBERHÄUSER: Until about November 1941.
DR. STAHMER: Who was his successor?
OBERHÄUSER: His successor was Colonel Ahrens.
DR. STAHMER: How long?
OBERHÄUSER: Approximately until September—it may have been
August—1943.
DR. STAHMER: Were you near Katyn as long as that, too?
OBERHÄUSER: I was there until the command of the army group transferred
its headquarters farther west.
DR. STAHMER: What were your relations with the commanders of this
regiment?
OBERHÄUSER: My relations with the regimental commanders were most
hearty, both officially and privately, which is due to the fact that I
had been the first commander of that regiment. I myself had formed the
regiment and I was most attached to it.
DR. STAHMER: Did you personally visit the little Dnieper Castle
frequently?
OBERHÄUSER: I went to the Dnieper Castle frequently; I can well say in
normal times once or twice a week.
DR. STAHMER: Did the commanders visit you in the meantime?
OBERHÄUSER: The commanders came to see me more frequently than I went to
see them.
DR. STAHMER: Did you know anything about the fact that near Smolensk,
about 25 to 45 kilometers to the west, there were three Russian camps
which contained Polish prisoners of war...
OBERHÄUSER: I knew nothing of that.
DR. STAHMER: ...who had fallen into the hands of the Germans?
OBERHÄUSER: I never heard anything about it.
DR. STAHMER: Was there an order, which is supposed to have come from
Berlin, that Polish officers who were prisoners of war were to be shot?
OBERHÄUSER: No, such an order was never issued.
DR. STAHMER: Did you yourself ever give such an order?
OBERHÄUSER: I have never given such an order.
DR. STAHMER: Do you know whether Colonel Bedenck or Colonel Ahrens ever
caused such shootings to be carried out?
OBERHÄUSER: I am not informed, but I consider it absolutely impossible.
DR. STAHMER: Why?
OBERHÄUSER: First, because such a decisive order would necessarily have
gone through me, for I was the direct superior of the regiment; and
second, because if such an order had been given, for a reason which I
could not understand, and transmitted to the regiment through some
obscure channel, then the commanders would most certainly have rung me
up or they would have come to see me and said, “General, they are asking
something here which we cannot understand.”
DR. STAHMER: Do you know First Lieutenant Hodt?
OBERHÄUSER: Yes, I know him.
DR. STAHMER: What position did he have in Regiment 537?
OBERHÄUSER: Hodt held various posts in the regiment. Usually, he was
sent ahead because he was a particularly qualified officer—especially
in regard to technical qualifications—in order to make preparations
when headquarters was being changed. He was therefore used as advance
party of the so-called technical company in order to establish the new
command posts; and then he was the regimental expert for the telephone
system, dealing with all matters relating to the telephone and teletype
system with the command headquarters of the army group. In my staff he
was occasionally detailed to fill the positions of any of my officers
when they were on leave.
DR. STAHMER: Was he also in charge of the advance party during the
advance on Katyn?
OBERHÄUSER: That I cannot say. I can only say that I personally heard
from my staff signal commander that he had sent an officer ahead, after
it had been ascertained how the headquarters were to be laid out, that
this officer was acting on my behalf, as at the time I still remained in
the old quarters, and he was preparing things in the way I wanted them
from the point of view of the signal commander. I do not know who was in
charge of that advance party at the time, but it is quite possible that
it was First Lieutenant Hodt.
DR. STAHMER: Were you in Katyn or the vicinity during the period after
the capture of Smolensk, which was, I believe, on or about 20 July 1941,
and up to the transfer of your staff to Katyn on 20 September?
OBERHÄUSER: I was in the vicinity. I was where the headquarters of the
army group wanted to settle down; that is, in the woods west of
Smolensk, where Katyn is located.
DR. STAHMER: Were you frequently there during that time?
OBERHÄUSER: I should say three or four times.
DR. STAHMER: Did you talk to Hodt on those occasions?
OBERHÄUSER: If he was the officer in charge of the advance party, which
I cannot say today, then I must certainly have talked to him. At any
rate, I did talk to the officer whom I had sent ahead and also to the
one from my regiment.
DR. STAHMER: Did you hear anything about shootings occurring during that
time?
OBERHÄUSER: I heard nothing, nor did I hear anything at all except in
1943, when the graves were opened.
DR. STAHMER: Did you or Regiment 537 have the necessary technical means,
pistols, ammunition, and so on, at your disposal which would have made
it possible to carry out shootings on such a scale?
OBERHÄUSER: The regiment, being a signal regiment in the rear area, was
not equipped with weapons and ammunition as well as the actual fighting
troops. Such a task, however, would have been something unusual for the
regiment; first, because a signal regiment has completely different
tasks, and secondly it would not have been in a position technically to
carry out such mass executions.
DR. STAHMER: Do you know the place where these graves were discovered
later on?
OBERHÄUSER: I know the site because I drove past it a great deal.
DR. STAHMER: Can you describe it more accurately?
OBERHÄUSER: Taking the main road Smolensk-Vitebsk, a path led through
wooded undulating ground. There were sandy spaces, which were, however,
covered with scrub and heather, and along that narrow path one got to
the Dnieper Castle from the main road.
DR. STAHMER: Were the places where these graves were later discovered
already overgrown when you got there?
OBERHÄUSER: They were overgrown just like the surrounding ground, and
there was no difference between them and the rest of the surroundings.
DR. STAHMER: In view of your knowledge of the place, would you consider
it possible that 11,000 Poles could have been buried at that spot,
people who may have been shot between June and September 1941?
OBERHÄUSER: I consider that it is out of the question, for the mere
reason that if the commander had known it at the time he would certainly
never have chosen this spot for his headquarters, next to 11,000 dead.
DR. STAHMER: Can you tell me how the graves were discovered?
OBERHÄUSER: Officially I had nothing to do with that. I only heard that
through local inhabitants or somebody else it had become known that
large-scale executions had taken place there years ago.
DR. STAHMER: From whom did you hear that?
OBERHÄUSER: Quite probably from the commander himself, who, because he
was located on the spot, had heard more about it than I had. But I
cannot remember exactly now.
DR. STAHMER: So you did not receive official notice about the discovery
of the graves, did you?
OBERHÄUSER: No, I never did.
DR. STAHMER: After the opening of the graves, did you talk to the German
or foreign members of the commission?
OBERHÄUSER: I have never talked to any members of that commission.
DR. STAHMER: I have no further questions, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Witness, you arrived in the region of Katyn in
September 1943?
OBERHÄUSER: 1941, not 1943.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Excuse me, I meant September 1941. Is that
correct?
OBERHÄUSER: Yes, September 1941.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And you contend that you did not know anything
either about the camps for Polish prisoners of war or the prisoners in
the hands of the German troops, is that so?
OBERHÄUSER: I have never heard anything about Polish prisoners of war
being in the hands of German troops.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I understand that this had no relation to your
official activity as the commander of a signal regiment. But in spite of
this you may perhaps have witnessed that various German troops combed
the woods in the vicinity of the Smolensk-Vitebsk highway to capture
Polish prisoners of war who had escaped from the camps?
OBERHÄUSER: I never heard anything about troops going there in order to,
shall we say, recapture escaped Polish prisoners of war. I am hearing
this here for the first time.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please answer me. Have you perhaps seen German
military units escorting Polish prisoners of war who were captured in
the woods?
OBERHÄUSER: I have not seen that.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please answer the following question: You were
on good terms with Colonel Ahrens, were you not?
OBERHÄUSER: I have had good relations with all commanders of the
regiment.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And in addition to that, you were his immediate
superior?
OBERHÄUSER: Right.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Colonel Ahrens found out about the mass graves
at the end of 1941 or at the beginning of 1942. Did he tell you anything
about his discovery?
OBERHÄUSER: I cannot believe that Colonel Ahrens could have discovered
the graves in 1941. I cannot imagine that—I especially cannot imagine
that he would tell me nothing about it.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: In any case do you contend that neither in 1942
nor in 1943 did Colonel Ahrens report to you in regard to this affair?
OBERHÄUSER: Colonel Ahrens never told me anything about it, and he would
have told me if he had known.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I am interested in the following answer which
you gave to a question by defense counsel. You remarked that the signal
regiment had not enough weapons to carry out shootings. What do you mean
by that? How many, and what kind of weapons did the regiment possess?
OBERHÄUSER: The signal regiment were mostly equipped with pistols and
with carbines. They had no automatic arms.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Pistols? Of what caliber?
OBERHÄUSER: They were Parabellum pistols. The caliber, I think, was
7.65, but I cannot remember for certain.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Parabellum pistols, 7.65, or were there Mauser
pistols or any other kind of weapons?
OBERHÄUSER: That varied. Noncommissioned officers, as far as I know, had
the smaller Mauser pistols. Actually, only noncommissioned officers were
equipped with pistols. The majority of the men had carbines.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I would like you to tell us some more about the
pistols. You say that they were 7.65 caliber pistols, is that so?
OBERHÄUSER: I cannot now, at the moment, give you exact information
about the caliber. I only know that the Parabellum pistol was 7.65 or
some such caliber. I think the Mauser pistol had a somewhat smaller
caliber.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And Walter pistols?
OBERHÄUSER: There were also Walters. I think they had the same caliber
as the Mauser. It is a smaller, black pistol; and it is better than the
somewhat cumbersome Parabellum pistol which is heavier.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, that is quite correct. Please tell me
whether in this regiment the noncommissioned officers possessed those
small pistols.
OBERHÄUSER: As a rule, noncommissioned officers had pistols but not
carbines.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I see. Perhaps you can tell us about how many
pistols this signal regiment possessed?
OBERHÄUSER: Of course I cannot tell you that now. Let us assume that
every noncommissioned officer had a pistol...
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And how many noncommissioned officers were
there? How many pistols in all were there in your regiment if you
consider that every noncommissioned officer had a pistol?
OBERHÄUSER: Assuming that every noncommissioned officer in the regiment
had a pistol that would amount to 15 per company, a total of 150.
However, to give a definite statement about that figure retrospectively
now is impossible. I can only give you clues.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Why do you consider that 150 pistols would be
insufficient to carry out these mass killings which went on over a
period of time? What makes you so positive about that?
OBERHÄUSER: Because a signal regiment of an army group deployed over a
large area as in the case of Army Group Center is never together as a
unit. The regiment was spread out from Kolodov as far as Vitebsk, and
there were small detachments everywhere, and in the headquarters of the
regiment there were comparatively few people; in other words, there were
never 150 pistols in one and the same place.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: The main part of the signal regiment was located
in the Katyn woods, was it not?
OBERHÄUSER: I did not understand your question.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: The main portions of your regiment were located
in the Katyn woods, were they not?
OBERHÄUSER: The first company was mainly located between the regimental
staff quarters and the actual command post of the army group. That was
the company which was handling the communications, the telephone and
teleprinted communications for the army group. It was the company,
therefore, which was nearest.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: One more question. The officers of your regiment
were obviously armed with pistols and not with carbines?
OBERHÄUSER: Officers had pistols only, and as a rule they only had small
ones. Possibly one or the other may have had a Parabellum pistol.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That is to say either a Walter or a Mauser?
OBERHÄUSER: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Did you frequently visit the villa where the
headquarters of Regiment 537 was located?
OBERHÄUSER: Yes, I was there at least once, sometimes twice, a week.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Were you ever interested as to why soldiers from
other military units visited the villa in Kozy Gory and why special beds
were prepared for them as well as drinks and food?
OBERHÄUSER: I cannot imagine that there were any large-scale visits of
other soldiers or members of other units. I do not know anything about
that.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I am not speaking about a great number. I am
speaking of 20 or sometimes 25 men.
OBERHÄUSER: If the regimental commander summoned his company and
detachment commanders for an officers’ meeting, then, of course, there
would be a few dozen of such officers who normally would not be seen
there.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: No, I am not talking about officers who belonged
to the unit. I would like to ask you another somewhat different
question. Would the number 537 appear on the shoulder straps of the
soldiers belonging to that regiment?
OBERHÄUSER: As far as I recollect the number was on the shoulder straps,
but at the beginning of the war it could be concealed by a camouflage
flap. I cannot remember whether during that particular period these
covers were used or not. At any rate at the street entrance to the
regimental headquarters there was a black-yellow-black flag, which bore
the number 537.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I am speaking of soldiers who came to the villa
in Kozy Gory, and who did not have the number 537 on their shoulder
straps. Were you ever interested in finding out what those soldiers did
there in September and October of 1941? Did the commander of the unit
report to you about this?
OBERHÄUSER: May I ask what year this was supposed to be, 1941?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, 1941, that is the year which is concerned.
OBERHÄUSER: I do not think that at that time there was much coming and
going of outsiders at staff headquarters because during that period
everything was in course of construction and I cannot imagine that other
units, even small groups of 20 or 25 people should have been there. I
personally, as I have told you, was there only once or twice weekly, and
not before September or October.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Beginning with what date of September did you
start visiting there? You said it was in September but not from what
date.
OBERHÄUSER: I cannot tell you. The commander of the army group moved at
the end of September from Borossilov, shortly before the battle of
Vyazma, which was on 2 October, into that district.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Consequently, you could start visiting this
villa for instance only at the end of September or the beginning of
October 1941?
OBERHÄUSER: It was only then that the little castle was finally
occupied, for the regiment did not arrive much earlier than we from the
command of the army group.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, is it necessary to go into this detail?
Have you any particular purpose in going into so much detail?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I ask this question for the
following reasons: Later we shall interrogate witnesses for the Soviet
Prosecution on the same point and particularly the chief of the
medico-legal investigation. That is why I would like to ask the
permission of the Court to clarify this point concerning the time when
the witness visited the villa. That will be my last question to this
point.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. Do not go into greater detail than you
find absolutely necessary.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Consequently, at the beginning of September and
the first part of October 1941 you were not in the villa of Katyn woods
and you could not be there at the time, is that true?
OBERHÄUSER: I cannot remember that exactly. The regimental commander had
spotted the little castle and set it up for his staff headquarters. When
exactly he moved in I cannot know, because I had other jobs to do.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: No, I asked whether you personally could not
have been in the villa during the first part of September. Could you not
possibly have been there before 20 September?
OBERHÄUSER: I do not think so.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have no further questions, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to re-examine, Dr. Stahmer?
DR. STAHMER: Unfortunately, Mr. President, I shall have to come back to
the question of time because it was not brought out too clearly during
these last questions.
When did Regiment 537 move into the castle?
OBERHÄUSER: I assume it was during September.
DR. STAHMER: Beginning or end of September?
OBERHÄUSER: Probably rather more toward the end of September.
DR. STAHMER: Until then only the advance party was there, or...
OBERHÄUSER: The advance party of the regiment was there and my officers
whom I had sent ahead.
DR. STAHMER: How many noncommissioned officers were with the advance
party?
OBERHÄUSER: I cannot tell you exactly how many the regiment sent. I
personally had sent one officer. Generally the regiment could not have
sent very many. As a rule, as is always the case, the regiment was still
operating at the old command post in Borossilov and simultaneously it
had to set up the new post. Consequently, during this period of
regrouping, on the point of moving a command of an army group, there is
always a considerable shortage of men. The old headquarters still has to
be looked after, the new post requires men for its construction, so that
as always during this period there were certainly too few people.
DR. STAHMER: Can you not even give us an estimate of the figure of that
advance party?
OBERHÄUSER: There were 30, 40, or 50 men.
DR. STAHMER: How many noncommissioned officers?
OBERHÄUSER: Probably one or two officers, a few noncommissioned
officers, and some men.
DR. STAHMER: The regiment was very widely spread out, was it not?
OBERHÄUSER: Yes.
DR. STAHMER: How far, approximately?
OBERHÄUSER: In the entire area of Army Group Center, shall we say
between Orel and Vitebsk—in that entire area they were widely
dispersed.
DR. STAHMER: How many kilometers was that, approximately?
OBERHÄUSER: More than 500 kilometers.
DR. STAHMER: Do you know Judge Advocate General Dr. Konrad of Army Group
Center?
OBERHÄUSER: Yes.
DR. STAHMER: Do you know whether, in 1943, he interrogated the local
inhabitants under oath about the date when the Polish officers were
supposed to have been shot in the woods of Katyn?
OBERHÄUSER: No, I do not know.
DR. STAHMER: I have no further questions, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Were there any Einsatzkommandos in the Katyn area during
the time that you were there?
OBERHÄUSER: Nothing has ever come to my knowledge about that.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you ever hear of an order to shoot Soviet commissars?
OBERHÄUSER: I only knew of that by hearsay.
THE PRESIDENT: When?
OBERHÄUSER: Probably at the beginning of the Russian campaign, I think.
THE PRESIDENT: Before the campaign started or after?
OBERHÄUSER: I cannot remember having heard anything like that before the
beginning of the campaign.
THE PRESIDENT: Who was to carry out that order?
OBERHÄUSER: Strictly speaking, signal troops are not really fighting
troops. Therefore, they really had nothing to do with that at all, and
therefore we were in no way affected by the order.
THE PRESIDENT: I did not ask you that. I asked you who had to carry out
the order.
OBERHÄUSER: Those who came into contact with these people, presumably.
THE PRESIDENT: Anybody who came in contact with Russian commissars had
to kill them; is that it?
OBERHÄUSER: No, I assume that it was the troops, the fighting troops,
the actual fighting troops at the front who first met the enemy. That
could only have applied to the army group. The signal regiment never
came into a position to meet commissars. That is probably why they were
not mentioned in the order or affected by it in any way.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I ask permission to call as
witness the former deputy mayor of the city of Smolensk during the
German occupation, Professor of Astronomy, Boris Bazilevsky.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, let him come in then.
[_The witness Bazilevsky took the stand._]
Will you state your full name, please?
BORIS BAZILEVSKY (Witness): Boris Bazilevsky.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you make this form of oath: I, a citizen of the
USSR—called as a witness in this case—solemnly promise and swear
before the High Tribunal—to say all that I know about this case—and to
add or to withhold nothing.
[_The witness repeated the oath._]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: With the permission of the Tribunal, I should
like to start with my interrogation, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell us, Witness, what your activity was
before the German occupation of the city and district of Smolensk and
where you were living in Smolensk.
BAZILEVSKY: Before the occupation of Smolensk and the surrounding
region...
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please speak slowly.
BAZILEVSKY: ...I lived in the city of Smolensk and was professor first
at the Smolensk University and then of the Smolensk Pedagogical
Institute, and at the same time I was director of the Smolensk
Astronomical Observatory. For 10 years I was the dean of the physics and
mathematics faculty, and in the last years I was deputy to the director
of the scientific department of the Institute.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: How many years did you live in Smolensk previous
to the German occupation?
BAZILEVSKY: From 1919.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Do you know what the so-called Katyn wood was?
BAZILEVSKY: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please speak slowly.
BAZILEVSKY: Actually, it was a grove. It was the favorite resort of the
inhabitants of Smolensk who spent their holidays and vacations there.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Was this wood before the war a special
reservation which was fenced or guarded by armed patrols, by watch dogs?
BAZILEVSKY: During the many years that I lived in Smolensk, this place
was never fenced; and no restrictions were ever placed on access to it.
I personally used to go there very frequently. The last time I was there
was in 1940 and in the spring of 1941. In this wood there was also a
camp for engineers. Thus, there was free access to this place for
everybody.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell me in what year there was an
engineer camp?
BAZILEVSKY: As far as I know, it was there for many years.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please speak slowly.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. Professor, will you wait a minute, please?
When you see that yellow light go on, it means that you are going too
fast; and when you are asked a question, will you pause before you
answer it? Do you understand?
BAZILEVSKY: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Will you please repeat your answer, and very
slowly, if you please.
BAZILEVSKY: The last time I know that the engineer camp was in the area
of the Katyn wood was in 1941.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Consequently, if I understand you correctly, in
1940 and 1941 before the beginning of the war at any rate—and you speak
of the spring of 1941—the Katyn wood was not a special reservation and
was accessible to everybody?
BAZILEVSKY: Yes. I say that that was the situation.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Do you say this as an eyewitness or from
hearsay?
BAZILEVSKY: No, I say it as an eyewitness who used to go there
frequently.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell the Tribunal under what
circumstances you became the first deputy mayor of Smolensk during the
period of the German occupation. Please speak slowly.
BAZILEVSKY: I was an administration official; and I did not have an
opportunity of leaving the place in time, because I was busy in saving
the particularly precious library of the Institute and the very valuable
equipment. In the circumstances I could not try to escape before the
evening of the 15th, but then I did not succeed in catching the train. I
therefore decided to leave the city on 16 July in the morning, but
during the night of 15 to 16 the city was unexpectedly occupied by
German troops. All the bridges across the Dnieper were blown up, and I
found myself in captivity.
After some time, on 20 July, a group of German soldiers came to the
observatory of which I was the director. They took down that I was the
director and that I was living there and that there was also a professor
of physics, Efimov, living in the same building.
In the evening of 20 July two German officers came to me and brought me
to the headquarters of the unit which had occupied Smolensk. After
checking my _personalia_ and after a short conversation, they suggested
that I become mayor of the city. I refused, basing my refusal on the
fact that I was a professor of astronomy and that, as I had no
experience in such matters, I could not undertake this post. They then
declared categorically and with threats, “We are going to force the
Russian intelligentsia to work.”
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Thus, if I understand you correctly, the Germans
forced you by threats to become the deputy mayor of Smolensk?
BAZILEVSKY: That is not all. They told me also that in a few days I
would be summoned to the Kommandantur.
On 25 July a man in civilian clothes appeared at my apartment,
accompanied by a German policeman, and represented himself as a lawyer,
Menschagin. He declared that he came by order of the military
headquarters and that I should accompany him immediately to
headquarters.
THE PRESIDENT: You are spending a lot of time on how he came to be mayor
of Smolensk.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Will you please allow me to pass to other
questions, Mr. President? Thank you for your observations.
[_Turning to the witness._] Who was your immediate superior? Who was the
mayor of Smolensk?
BAZILEVSKY: Menschagin.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: What were the relations between this man and the
German administration and particularly with the German Kommandantur?
BAZILEVSKY: These relations were very good and became closer and closer
every day.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Is it correct to say that Menschagin was the
trustee of the German administration and that they even gave him secret
information?
BAZILEVSKY: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Do you know that in the vicinity of Smolensk
there were Polish prisoners of war?
BAZILEVSKY: Yes, I do very well.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Do you know what they were doing?
THE PRESIDENT: I do not know what this is going to prove. You presumably
do, but can you not come nearer to the point?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: He said that he knew there were Polish prisoners
of war in Smolensk; and, with the permission of the Tribunal, I would
like to ask the witness what these prisoners of war were doing.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; go on.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please answer. What were the Polish prisoners of
war doing in the vicinity of Smolensk, and at what time?
BAZILEVSKY: In the spring of 1941 and at the beginning of the summer
they were working on the restoration of the roads, Moscow-Minsk and
Smolensk-Vitebsk.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: What do you know about the further fate of the
Polish prisoners of war?
Z BAZILEVSKY: Thanks to the position that I occupied, I learned very
early about the fate of the Polish prisoners of war.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell the Tribunal what you know about it.
BAZILEVSKY: In the camp for Russian prisoners of war known as “Dulag
126” there prevailed such a severe regime that prisoners of war were
dying by the hundreds every day; for this reason I tried to free all
those from this camp for whose release a reason could be given. I
learned that in this camp there was also a very well-known pedagogue
named Zhiglinski. I asked Menschagin to make representations to the
German Kommandantur of Smolensk, and in particular to Von Schwetz, and
to plead for the release of Zhiglinski from this camp.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please do not go into detail and do not waste
time, but tell the Tribunal about your conversation with Menschagin.
What did he tell you?
BAZILEVSKY: Menschagin answered my request with, “What is the use? We
can save one, but hundreds will die.” However, I insisted; and
Menschagin, after some hesitation, agreed to put this request to the
German Kommandantur.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please be short and tell us what Menschagin told
you when he came back from the German Kommandantur.
BAZILEVSKY: Two days later he told me that he was in a very difficult
situation on account of my demand. Von Schwetz had refused the request
by referring to an instruction from Berlin saying that a very severe
regime should prevail with respect to prisoners of war.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: What did he tell you about Polish prisoners of
war?
BAZILEVSKY: As to Polish prisoners of war, he told me that Russians
would at least be allowed to die in the camps while there were proposals
to exterminate the Poles.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: What else was said?
BAZILEVSKY: I replied, “What do you mean? What do you want to say? How
do you understand this?” And Menschagin answered, “You should understand
this in the very literal sense of these words.” He asked me not to tell
anybody about it, since it was a great secret.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: When did this conversation of yours take place
with Menschagin? In what month, and on what day?
BAZILEVSKY: This conversation took place at the beginning of September.
I cannot remember the exact date.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: But you remember it was the beginning of
September?
BAZILEVSKY: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Did you ever come back again to the fate of
Polish prisoners of war in your further conversations with Menschagin?
BAZILEVSKY: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Can you tell us when?
BAZILEVSKY: Two weeks later—that is to say, at the end of September—I
could not help asking him, “What was the fate of the Polish prisoners of
war?” At first Menschagin hesitated, and then he told me haltingly,
“They have already died. It is all over for them.”
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Did he tell you where they were killed?
BAZILEVSKY: He told me that they had been shot in the vicinity of
Smolensk, as Von Schwetz told him.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Did he mention the exact place?
BAZILEVSKY: No, he did not mention the exact place.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me this. Did you, in turn, tell anybody
about the extermination, by Hitlerites, of the Polish prisoners of war
near Smolensk?
BAZILEVSKY: I talked about this to Professor Efimov, who was living in
the same house with me. Besides him, a few days later I had a
conversation about it with Dr. Nikolski, who was the medical officer of
the city. However, I found out that Nikolski knew about this crime
already from some other source.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Did Menschagin tell you why these shootings took
place?
BAZILEVSKY: Yes. When he told me that the prisoners of war had been
killed, he emphasized once more the necessity of keeping it strictly
secret in order to avoid disagreeable consequences. He started to
explain to me the reasons for the German behavior with respect to the
Polish prisoners of war. He pointed out that this was only one measure
of the general system of treating Polish prisoners of war.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Did you hear anything about the extermination of
the Poles from the employees of the German Kommandantur?
BAZILEVSKY: Yes, 2 or 3 days later.
THE PRESIDENT: You are both going too fast, and you are not pausing
enough. You are putting your questions whilst the answers are coming
through. You must have longer pauses, and go slower.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Thank you, Mr. President.
[_Turning to the witness._] Please continue, but slowly.
BAZILEVSKY: I do not know where I was.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I asked you whether any of the employees of the
German Kommandantur told you anything about the extermination of the
Poles.
BAZILEVSKY: Two or three days later, when I visited the office of
Menschagin, I met there an interpreter, the Sonderführer of the 7th
Division of the German Kommandantur who was in charge of the Russian
administration and who had a conversation with Menschagin concerning the
Poles. He came from the Baltic region.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Perhaps you can tell us briefly what he said.
BAZILEVSKY: When I entered the room he was saying, “The Poles are a
useless people, and exterminated they may serve as fertilizer and for
the enlargement of living space for the German nation.”
THE PRESIDENT: You are doing exactly what I said just now. You are
asking the questions before the translation comes through.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Excuse me, Mr. President, I will try to speak
more slowly.
[_Turning to the witness._] Did you learn from Menschagin anything
definite about the shooting of Polish prisoners of war?
BAZILEVSKY: When I entered the room I heard the conversation with
Hirschfeld. I missed the beginning, but from the context of the
conversation it was clear that they spoke about this event.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Did Menschagin, when telling you about the
shooting of Polish prisoners of war, refer to Von Schwetz?
BAZILEVSKY: Yes; I had the impression that he referred to Von Schwetz.
But evidently—and this is my firm belief—he also spoke about it with
private persons in the Kommandantur.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: When did Menschagin tell you that Polish
prisoners of war were killed near Smolensk?
BAZILEVSKY: It was at the end of September.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have no further questions to put to this
witness, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
[_A recess was taken._]
MARSHAL: If it please the Tribunal, the Defendant Hess is absent.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer.
DR. STAHMER: Witness, in your testimony, just before recess, you read
out your testimony, if I observed correctly. Will you tell me whether
that was so or not?
BAZILEVSKY: I was not reading anything. I have only a plan of the
courtroom in my hand.
DR. STAHMER: It looked to me as though you were reading out your
answers. How can you explain the fact that the interpreter already had
your answer in his hands?
BAZILEVSKY: I do not know how the interpreters could have had my answers
beforehand. The testimony which I am giving was, however, known to the
Commission beforehand—that is, my testimony during the preliminary
examination.
DR. STAHMER: Do you know the little castle on the Dnieper, the little
villa? Did you not understand me or hear me? Do you know the little
castle on the Dnieper, the little villa on the Dnieper?
BAZILEVSKY: I do not know which villa you mean. There were quite a
number of villas on the Dnieper.
DR. STAHMER: The house which was near the Katyn wood on the steep bank
of the Dnieper River.
BAZILEVSKY: I still do not quite understand which house you mean. The
banks of the Dnieper are long, and therefore your question is quite
incomprehensible to me.
DR. STAHMER: Do you know where the graves of Katyn were found, in which
11,000 Polish officers were buried?
BAZILEVSKY: I was not there. I did not see the Katyn burial grounds.
DR. STAHMER: Had you never been in the Katyn wood?
BAZILEVSKY: As I already said, I was there not once but many times.
DR. STAHMER: Do you know where this mass burial site was located?
BAZILEVSKY: How can I know where the burial grounds were situated when I
could not go there since the occupation?
DR. STAHMER: How do you know that the little wood was not fenced in?
BAZILEVSKY: Before the occupation of the Smolensk district by the German
troops, the entire area, as I already stated, was not surrounded by any
barrier; but according to hearsay I knew that after the occupation
access to this wood was prohibited by the German local command.
DR. STAHMER: Therefore you have no knowledge of the fact that here in
the Katyn wood a sanitarium or a convalescent home of the GPU was
located?
BAZILEVSKY: I know very well; that was known to all the citizens of
Smolensk.
DR. STAHMER: Then, of course, you also know exactly which house I
referred to in my question?
BAZILEVSKY: I, myself, had never been in that house. In general, access
to that house was only allowed to the families of the employees of the
Ministry of the Interior. As to other persons, there was no need and no
facility for them to go there.
DR. STAHMER: The house, therefore, was closed off?
BAZILEVSKY: No, the house was not forbidden to strangers; but why should
people go there if they had no business there or were not in the
sanitarium? The garden, of course, was open to the public.
DR. STAHMER: Were there not guards stationed there?
BAZILEVSKY: I have never seen any.
DR. STAHMER: Is this Russian witness who reported to you about the
matter concerning the Polish officers, is this witness still alive?
BAZILEVSKY: Mr. Counsel, you probably mean Mayor Menschagin, if I
understand you rightly?
DR. STAHMER: When you read your testimony off, it was not easy for me to
follow. What was the mayor’s name? Menschagin? Is he still alive?
BAZILEVSKY: Menschagin went away together with the German troops during
their retreat, and I remained, and Menschagin’s fate is unknown to me.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, you are not entitled to say to the witness,
“when you read your testimony off,” just now, because he denied that he
read his testimony off and there is no evidence that he has read it off.
DR. STAHMER: Did this Russian witness tell you that the Polish officers
had come from the camp at Kosielsk?
BAZILEVSKY: Do you mean the camp at Kosielsk? Yes?
DR. STAHMER: Yes.
BAZILEVSKY: The witness did not say that.
DR. STAHMER: Do you know that place and locality?
BAZILEVSKY: Do you mean Kosielsk? I do, yes. In 1940, in the month of
August—at the end of August—I spent my leave there with my wife.
DR. STAHMER: Do you know whether there were Polish officers at that
place in a Russian prisoner-of-war camp?
BAZILEVSKY: Yes, I know that.
DR. STAHMER: Until what time did these prisoners of war remain there?
BAZILEVSKY: I do not know that for sure but at the end of August 1940
they were there. I am quite sure about that.
DR. STAHMER: Do you know whether this camp, together with its inmates,
fell into German hands?
BAZILEVSKY: Personally, that is, from my own observation, I do not know
it; but according to rumors, it appears to have been the case. That is,
of course, not my own testimony; I myself did not see it, but I heard
about it only.
DR. STAHMER: Did you hear what happened to these prisoners?
BAZILEVSKY: Yes, I heard, of course, that they remained there and could
not be evacuated.
DR. STAHMER: Did you hear what became of them?
BAZILEVSKY: I have already testified in my answers to the prosecutor
that they were shot on the order of the German Command.
DR. STAHMER: And where did these shootings take place?
BAZILEVSKY: Mr. Defense Counsel, you have apparently not heard my
answers. I already testified that Mayor Menschagin said that they were
shot in the neighborhood of Smolensk, but where he did not tell me.
DR. STAHMER: How many prisoners were involved?
BAZILEVSKY: Do you mean to say, how many were mentioned in the
conversation with Menschagin? I do not understand your question. Do you
mean to say according to the reports of Menschagin?
DR. STAHMER: What was the figure given to you by Menschagin?
BAZILEVSKY: Menschagin did not tell me any number. I repeat that this
conversation took place on the last days of September 1941.
DR. STAHMER: Can you give us the name of an eyewitness who was present
at this shooting or anyone who saw this shooting?
BAZILEVSKY: I believe that these executions were carried out under such
circumstances that I think it scarcely possible that any Russian
witnesses could be present.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, you should answer the question directly. You
were asked, “Can you give the names of anybody who was there?” You can
answer that “yes” or “no” and then you can add any explanations
necessary.
BAZILEVSKY: I will follow your instructions, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you give the name of anybody who saw the executions?
BAZILEVSKY: No, I cannot name any eyewitness.
DR. STAHMER: What German unit is supposed to have carried out the
shootings?
BAZILEVSKY: I cannot answer that exactly. It is logical to assume that
it was the construction battalion which was stationed there; but of
course I could not know the exact organization of the German troops.
DR. STAHMER: Did the Poles involved here come from the camp at Kosielsk?
BAZILEVSKY: In general, this was not mentioned in the conversations of
that time, but I certainly do not know that; besides these might have
been any other Polish prisoners of war who had not been at Kosielsk
previously.
DR. STAHMER: Did you yourself see Polish officers?
BAZILEVSKY: I did not see them myself, but my students saw them, and
they told me that they had seen them in 1941.
DR. STAHMER: And where did they see them?
BAZILEVSKY: On the road where they were doing repair work at the
beginning of summer, 1941.
DR. STAHMER: In what general area or location?
BAZILEVSKY: In the district of the Moscow-Minsk highway, somewhat to the
west of Smolensk.
DR. STAHMER: Can you testify whether the Russian Army Command had a
report to the effect that Polish prisoners at the camp at Kosielsk had
fallen into the hands of the Germans?
BAZILEVSKY: No, I have no knowledge of that.
DR. STAHMER: What is the name of the German official or employee with
whom you talked at the Kommandantur?
BAZILEVSKY: Not in the Kommandantur, but in Menschagin’s office. His
name was Hirschfeld.
DR. STAHMER: What was his position?
BAZILEVSKY: He was Sonderführer of the 7th Detachment of the German
Kommandantur in the town of Smolensk.
DR. STAHMER: I have no further questions, Mr. President—just another
question or two, Mr. President.
[_Turning to the witness._] Were you punished by the Russian Government
on account of your collaboration with the German authorities?
BAZILEVSKY: No, I was not.
DR. STAHMER: Are you at liberty?
BAZILEVSKY: Not only am I at liberty; but, as I have already stated, I
am still professor at two universities.
DR. STAHMER: Therefore, you are back in office.
BAZILEVSKY: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, do you wish to re-examine?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: No, Mr. President, I have no further questions
to put to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, do you know whether the man, whose name I
understand to be Menschagin, was told about these matters or whether he
himself had any direct knowledge of them?
BAZILEVSKY: From Menschagin’s own words, I understood quite definitely
that he had heard those things himself at the Kommandantur, particularly
from Von Schwetz, who was the commander from the beginning of the
occupation.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I beg the Tribunal to allow me to
call as witness Marko Antonov Markov, a Bulgarian citizen, professor at
the University of Sofia.
[_The interpreter Valev and the witness Markov took the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: Are you the interpreter?
LUDOMIR VALEV (Interpreter): Yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give us your full name?
VALEV: Ludomir Valev.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear before God
and the Law—that I will interpret truthfully and to the best of my
skill—the evidence to be given by the witness.
[_The interpreter repeated the oath._]
THE PRESIDENT: [_To the witness._] Will you give us your full name,
please?
DR. MARKO ANTONOV MARKOV (Witness): Dr. Marko Antonov Markov.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear—as a witness
in this case—that I will speak only the truth—being aware of my
responsibility before God and the Law—and that I will withhold and add
nothing.
[_The witness repeated the oath._]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, before this witness is examined, I would like
to call to the attention of the Tribunal the fact that Dr. Stahmer asked
the preceding witness a question which I understood went: How did it
happen that the interpreters had the questions and the answers to your
questions if you didn’t have them before you? Now that question implied
that Dr. Stahmer had some information that the interpreters did have the
answers to the questions, and I sent a note up to the interpreters, and
I have the answer from the lieutenant in charge that no one there had
any answers or questions, and I think it should be made clear on the
record.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think so, too.
DR. STAHMER: I was advised of this fact outside the courtroom. If it is
not a fact, I wish to withdraw my statement. I was informed outside the
courtroom from a trustworthy source. I do not recall the name of the
person who told me, I shall have to ascertain it.
THE PRESIDENT: Such statements ought not be made by counsel until they
have verified them.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I begin the examination of this witness, Mr.
President?
THE PRESIDENT: The examination, yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Witness, I beg you to tell us briefly, without
taking up the time of the Tribunal with too many details, under what
conditions you were included in the so-called International Medical
Commission set up by the Germans in the month of April 1943 for the
examination of the graves of Polish officers in the Katyn woods.
I beg you, when answering me, to pause between the question I put to you
and your own answer.
MARKOV: This occurred at the end of April 1943. While working in the
Medico-Legal Institute, where I am still working, I was called to the
telephone by Dr. Guerow.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness must stop before the interpreter begins.
Otherwise, the voices come over the microphone together. So the
interpreter must wait until the witness has finished his answer before
he repeats it.
Now, the witness has said—at least this is what I heard—that in April
1943 he was called on the telephone.
MARKOV: I was called to the telephone by Dr. Guerow, the secretary of
Dr. Filoff who was then Prime Minister of Bulgaria. I was told that I
was to take part, as representative of the Bulgarian Government, in the
work of an international medical commission which had to examine the
corpses of Polish officers discovered in the Katyn wood.
Not wishing to go, I answered that I had to replace the director of my
Institute who was away in the country. Dr. Guerow told me that according
to an instruction of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who had sent the
telegram, it was precisely in order to replace him that I would have to
go there. Guerow told me to come to the Ministry. There I asked him if I
could refuse to comply with this order. He answered that we were in a
state of war and that the Government could send anybody wherever and
whenever they deemed it necessary.
Guerow took me to the first secretary of the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Schuchmanov. Schuchmanov repeated this order and told me that
we were to examine the corpses of thousands of Polish officers. I
answered that to examine thousands of corpses would take several months,
but Schuchmanov said that the Germans had already exhumed a great number
of these corpses and that I would have to go, together with other
members of the commission, in order to see what had already been done
and in order to sign, as Bulgarian representative, the report of the
proceedings which had already been drafted. After that, I was taken to
the German Legation, to Counsellor Mormann, who arranged all the
technical details of the trip. This was on Saturday; and on Monday
morning, 26 April, I flew to Berlin. There I was met by an official of
the Bulgarian Legation and I was lodged at the Hotel Adlon.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please answer the next question: Who took part
in this so-called International Commission, and when did they leave for
Katyn?
MARKOV: On the next day, 27 April, we stayed in Berlin and the other
members of the commission arrived there too.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Who were they?
MARKOV: They were the following, besides myself: Dr. Birkle, chief
doctor of the Ministry of Justice and first assistant of the Institute
of Forensic Medicine and Criminology at Bucharest; Dr. Miloslavich,
professor of forensic medicine and criminology at Zagreb University, who
was representative for Croatia; Professor Palmieri, who was professor
for forensic medicine and criminology at Naples; Dr. Orsos, professor of
forensic medicine and criminology at Budapest; Dr. Subik, professor of
pathological anatomy at the University of Bratislava and chief of the
State Department for Health for Slovakia; Dr. Hajek, professor for
forensic medicine and criminology at Prague, who represented the
so-called Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia; Professor Naville,
professor of forensic medicine at the University of Geneva,
representative for Switzerland; Dr. Speleers, professor for
ophthalmology at Ghent University, who represented Belgium; Dr. De
Burlett, professor of anatomy at the University of Groningen,
representing Holland; Dr. Tramsen, vice chancellor of the Institute for
forensic medicine at Copenhagen University, representing Denmark; Dr.
Saxen, who was professor for pathological anatomy at Helsinki
University, Finland.
During the investigations of the commission, a Dr. Costeduat was
missing; he declared that he could attend only as a personal
representative of President Laval. Professor Piga from Madrid also
arrived, an elderly gentleman who did not take any part in the work of
the commission. It was stated later that he was ill as a result of the
long journey.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Were all these persons flown to Katyn?
MARKOV: All these persons arrived at Katyn with the exception of
Professor Piga.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Who besides the members of the commission left
for Katyn with you?
MARKOV: On the 28th we took off from Tempelhof Airdrome, Berlin, for
Katyn. We took off in two airplanes which carried about 15 to 20 persons
each.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Maybe you can tell us briefly who was there?
MARKOV: Together with us was Director Dietz, who met us and accompanied
us. He represented the Ministry of Public Health. There were also press
representatives, and two representatives of the Ministry for Foreign
Affairs.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I beg you to stop with these details and to tell
me when the commission arrived in Katyn?
MARKOV: The commission arrived in Smolensk on 28 April, in the evening.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: How many work days did the commission stay in
Smolensk? I stress work days.
MARKOV: We stayed in Smolensk 2 days only, 29 and 30 April 1943, and on
1 May, in the morning, we left Smolensk.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: How many times did the members of the commission
personally visit the mass graves in the Katyn wood?
MARKOV: We were twice in the Katyn wood, that is, in the forenoon of 29
and 30 April.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I mean, how many hours did you spend each time
at the mass graves?
MARKOV: I consider not more than 3 or 4 hours each time.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Were the members of the commission present at
least once during the opening of one of the graves?
MARKOV: No new graves were opened in our presence. We were shown only
several graves which had already been opened before we arrived.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Therefore, you were shown already opened graves,
near which the corpses were already laid out, is that right?
MARKOV: Quite right. Near these opened graves were exhumed corpses
already laid out there.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Were the necessary conditions for an objective
and comprehensive scientific examination of the corpses given to the
members of the commission?
MARKOV: The only part of our activity which could be characterized as a
scientific, medico-legal examination were the autopsies carried out by
certain members of the commission who were themselves medico-legal
experts; but there were only seven or eight of us who could lay claim to
that qualification, and as far as I recall only eight corpses were
opened. Each of us operated on one corpse, except Professor Hajek, who
dissected two corpses. Our further activity during these 2 days
consisted of a hasty inspection under the guidance of Germans. It was
like a tourists’ walk during which we saw the open graves; and we were
shown a peasant’s house, a few kilometers distant from the Katyn wood,
where in showcases papers and objects of various sorts were kept. We
were told that these papers and objects had been found in the clothes of
the corpses which had been exhumed.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Were you actually present when these papers were
taken from the corpses or were they shown to you when they were already
under glass in display cabinets?
MARKOV: The documents which we saw in the glass cases had already been
removed from the bodies before we arrived.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Were you allowed to investigate these documents,
to examine these documents, for instance, to see whether the papers were
impregnated with any acids which had developed by the decay of the
corpses, or to carry out any other kind of scientific examination?
MARKOV: We did not carry out any scientific examination of these papers.
As I have already told you, these papers were exhibited in glass cases
and we did not even touch them.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: But I would like you nevertheless to answer me
briefly with “yes” or “no,” a question which I have already put to you.
Were the members of the commission given facilities for an objective
examination?
MARKOV: In my opinion these working conditions can in no way be
qualified as adequate for a complete and objective scientific
examination. The only thing which bore the character of the scientific
nature was the autopsy which I carried out.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: But did I rightly understand you, that from the
11,000 corpses which were discovered only 8 were dissected by members of
the commission.
MARKOV: Quite right.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please answer the next question. In what
condition were these corpses? I would like you to describe the state in
which they were and also the state of the inner organs, the tissues, et
cetera.
MARKOV: As to the condition of the corpses in the Katyn graves, I can
only judge according to the state of the corpse which I myself
dissected. The condition of this corpse was, as far as I could
ascertain, the same as that of all the other corpses. The skin was still
well preserved, was in part leathery, of a brown-red color and on some
parts there were blue markings from the clothes. The nails and hair,
mostly, had already fallen out. In the head of the corpse I dissected
there was a small hole, a bullet wound in the back of the head. Only
pulpy substance remained of the brain. The muscles were still so well
preserved that one could even see the fibers of the sinews of heart
muscles and valves. The inner organs were also mainly in a good state of
preservation. But of course they were dried up, displaced, and of a dark
color. The stomach showed traces of some sort of contents. A part of the
fat had turned into wax. We were impressed by the fact that even when
pulled with brute force, no limbs had detached themselves.
I dictated a report, on the spot, on the result of my investigation. A
similar report was dictated by the other members of the commission who
examined corpses. This report was published by the Germans, under Number
827, in the book which they published.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I would like you to answer the following
question. Did the medico-legal investigations testify to the fact that
the corpses had been in the graves already for 3 years?
MARKOV: As to that question I could judge only from the corpse on which
I myself had held a post mortem. The condition of this corpse, as I have
already stated, was typical of the average condition of the Katyn
corpses. These corpses were far removed from the stage of disintegration
of the soft parts, since the fat was only beginning to turn into wax. In
my opinion these corpses were buried for a shorter period of time than 3
years. I considered that the corpse which I dissected had been buried
for not more than 1 year or 18 months.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Therefore, applying the criteria of the facts
which you ascertained to your experiences in Bulgaria—that is, in a
country of a more southern climate than Smolensk and where decay,
therefore, is more rapid—one must come to the conclusion that the
corpses that were exhumed in the Katyn forest had been lying under the
earth for not more than a year and a half? Did I understand you
correctly?
MARKOV: Yes, quite right. I had the impression that they had been buried
for not more than a year and a half.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 2 July 1946 at 1000 hours._]
ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY-NINTH DAY
Tuesday, 2 July 1946
_Morning Session_
[_The witness Markov resumed the stand._]
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Witness, when did you, together with the other
members of the commission, perform the autopsies of these eight corpses?
What date was it exactly?
MARKOV: That was on 30 April, early in the day.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And, on the basis of your personal observations,
you decided that the corpses were in the ground 1 year or 18 months at
the most?
MARKOV: That is correct.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Before putting the next question to you, I
should like you to give me a brief answer to the following question: Is
it correct that in the practice of Bulgarian medical jurisprudence the
protocol about the autopsy contains two parts, a description and the
deductions?
MARKOV: Yes. In our practice, as well as in the practice of other
countries, so far as I know, it is done in the following way: First of
all, we give a description and then the deduction.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Was a deduction contained in the record you made
regarding the autopsy?
MARKOV: My record of the autopsy contained only a description without
any conclusion.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Why?
MARKOV: Because from the papers which were given to us there I
understood that they wanted us to say that the corpses had been in the
ground for 3 years. This could be deduced from the papers which were
shown to us in the little peasant hut about which I have already spoken.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: By the way, were these papers shown to you
before the autopsy or afterward?
MARKOV: Yes, the papers were given us 1 day before the autopsy.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: So you were...
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, you are interrupting the interpreter all
the time. Before the interpreter has finished the answer, you have put
another question. It is very difficult for us to hear the interpreter.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Thank you for your indication, Mr. President.
MARKOV: Inasmuch as the objective deduction regarding the autopsy I
performed was in contradiction with this version, I did not make any
deductions.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Consequently you did not make any deduction
because the objective data of the autopsy testified to the fact that the
corpses had been in the ground, not 3 years, but only 18 months?
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, you must remember that it is a double
translation, and unless you pause more than you are pausing, your voice
comes in upon the interpreter’s and we cannot hear the interpreter.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Very well, Mr. President.
MARKOV: Yes, that is quite correct.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Was there unanimity among the members of the
commission regarding the time the corpses had been in the graves?
MARKOV: Most of the members of the delegation who performed the
autopsies in the Katyn wood made their deductions without answering the
essential question regarding the time the corpses had been buried. Some
of them, as for instance, Professor Hajek, spoke about immaterial
things; as for instance, that one of the killed had had pleurisy. Some
of the others, as for instance, Professor Birkle from Bucharest, cut off
some hair from a corpse in order to determine the age of the corpse. In
my opinion that was quite immaterial. Professor Palmieri, on the basis
of the autopsy that he performed, said that the corpse had been in the
ground over a year but he did not determine exactly how long.
The only one who gave a definite statement in regard to the time the
corpses had been buried was Professor Miloslavich from Zagreb, and he
said it was 3 years. However, when the German book regarding Katyn was
published, I read the result of his impartial statement regarding the
corpse on which he had performed the autopsy. I had the impression that
the corpse on which he had performed the autopsy did not differ in its
stage of decomposition from the other corpses. This led me to think that
his statement that the corpses had been in the ground for 3 years did
not coincide with the facts of his description.
COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I would like to ask you to reply to the following
question. Were there many skulls found by the members of the commission
with signs of so-called _pseudocallus_? By the way, inasmuch as this
term is not known in the usual books on medical jurisprudence and in
general criminalistic terminology, I should like you to give us an exact
explanation of what Professor Orsos, of Budapest, means by the term
_pseudocallus_.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you repeat that question?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Were there many skulls with signs of so-called
_pseudocallus_ which were submitted to the members of the commission?
Inasmuch as this term is not known in the usual books on medical
jurisprudence, I should like you to give us a detailed explanation of
what Professor Orsos means by the term _pseudocallus_.
THE PRESIDENT: What are you saying the skulls had? You asked if there
were many skulls with something or other.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I see this term for the first time, myself, Mr.
President. It is _pseudocallus_. It seems to be a Latin term of some
sort of corn which is formed on the outer surface of the cerebral
substance.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you spell the word in Latin?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President.
[_The prosecutor submitted a paper to the President._]
THE PRESIDENT: What you have written here is p-s-e-r-d-o. Do you mean
p-s-e-u-d-o, which means false?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, that is right, pseudo.
THE PRESIDENT: Now then, put your question again, and try to put it
shortly.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes.
[Turning to the witness.] Were there many skulls with signs of so-called
_pseudocallus_ shown to the members of the commission? Will you please
give an exact explanation of this term of Professor Orsos’.
MARKOV: Professor Orsos spoke to us regarding _pseudocallus_ at a
general conference of the delegates. That took place on 30 April, in the
afternoon, in the building where the field laboratory of Dr. Butz in
Smolensk was located.
Professor Orsos described the term _pseudocallus_ as meaning some
sediment of indissoluble salt, of calcium, and other salts on the inside
of the cranium. Professor Orsos stated that, according to his
observations in Hungary, this happened if the corpses have been in the
ground for at least 3 years. When Professor Orsos stated this at the
scientific conference, none of the delegates said anything either for or
against it. I deduced from that that this term _pseudocallus_ was as
unknown to the other delegates as it was to me.
At the same conference Professor Orsos showed us such a _pseudocallus_
on one of the skulls.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I should like you to answer the following
question: What number did the corpse have from which this skull with
signs of _pseudocallus_ was taken?
MARKOV: The corpse from which the skull was taken and which was noted in
the book bore the Number 526. From this I deduced that this corpse was
exhumed before our arrival at Katyn, inasmuch as all the other corpses
on which we performed autopsies on 30 April had numbers which ran above
800. It was explained to us that as soon as a corpse was exhumed it
immediately received a consecutive number.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me this, please. Did you notice any
_pseudocallus_ on the skulls of the corpses on which you and your
colleagues performed autopsies?
MARKOV: On the skull of the corpse on which I performed an autopsy,
there was some sort of pulpy substance in place of the brain, but I
never noticed any sign of _pseudocallus_. The other delegates—after the
explanation of Professor Orsos—likewise did not state that they had
found any _pseudocallus_ in the other skulls. Even Butz and his
co-workers, who had examined the corpses before our arrival, did not
mention any sign of _pseudocallus_.
Later on, in a book which was published by the Germans and which
contained the report of Butz, I noticed that Butz referred to
_pseudocallus_ in order to give more weight to his statement that the
corpses had been in the ground for 3 years.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That is to say, that of the 11,000 corpses only
one skull was submitted to you which had _pseudocallus_?
MARKOV: That is quite correct.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I should like you to describe to the Tribunal in
detail the state of the clothing which you found on the corpses.
MARKOV: In general the clothing was well preserved, but of course it was
damp due to the decomposition of the corpses. When we pulled off the
clothing to undress the corpses, or when we tried to take off the shoes,
the clothing did not tear nor did the shoes fall apart at the seams. I
even had the impression that this clothing could have been used again,
after having been cleaned.
There were some papers found in the pockets of the clothing of the
corpse on which I performed the autopsy, and these papers were also
impregnated with the dampness of the corpse. Some of the Germans who
were present when I was performing the autopsy asked me to describe
those papers and their contents; but I refused to do it, thinking that
this was not the duty of a doctor. In fact I had already noticed the
previous day that with the help of the dates contained in those papers,
they were trying to make us think that the corpses had remained in the
ground for 3 years.
Therefore, I wanted to base my deductions only on the actual condition
of the corpses. Some of the other delegates who performed autopsies also
found some papers in the clothing of the corpses. The papers which had
been found in the clothing of the corpse on which I performed the
autopsy were put into a cover which bore the same number as the corpse,
Number 827. Later on, in the book which was published by the Germans, I
perceived that some of the delegates described the contents of the
papers which were found on the corpses.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I should like to ask you to reply to the
following question. On what impartial medico-judicial data did the
commission base the deduction that the corpses had remained in the earth
not less than 3 years?
THE PRESIDENT: Will you put the question again? I did not understand the
question.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I asked on what impartial medico-judicial data
were the deductions of the protocol of the International Medical
Commission based, which stated that the corpses had remained in the
ground not less than 3 years?
THE PRESIDENT: Has he said that that was the deduction he made—not less
than 3 years?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): He has not said that.
THE PRESIDENT: He has not said that at all. He never said that he made
the deduction that the corpses remained in the ground not less than 3
years.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: He did not make this deduction; but Professor
Markov, together with the other members of the commission, signed a
report of the International Commission.
THE PRESIDENT: I know; but that is why I ask you to repeat your
question. The question that was translated to us was: On what grounds
did you make your deduction that the corpses had remained, in the ground
not less than 3 years—which is the opposite of what he said.
Now will you put the question again?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Very well.
[_Turning to the witness._] I am not asking you about your personal
minutes, Witness, but about the general record of the entire commission.
I am asking you on what impartial medico-judicial data were the
deductions of the entire commission based, that the corpses had remained
in the earth not less than 3 years. On the record of the deductions your
signature figures among those of the other members of the commission.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. Now, then, Colonel Smirnov, will you put
the question again.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President.
[_Turning to the witness._] I was asking you on what impartial
medico-judicial data were the deductions of the commission based—not
the individual report of Dr. Markov, in which there are no
deductions—but the deductions of the entire commission, that the
corpses had remained not less than 3 years in the ground?
MARKOV: The collective protocol of the commission which was signed by
all the delegates was very scant regarding the real medico-judicial
data. Concerning the condition of the corpses, only one sentence in the
report was stated, namely that the corpses were in various stages of
decomposition, but there was no description of the real extent of
decomposition.
Thus, in my opinion, this deduction was based on the papers found on the
corpses and on testimony of the witnesses, but not on the actual
medico-judicial data. As far as medical jurisprudence is concerned, they
tried to support this deduction by the statement of Professor Orsos
regarding the finding of _pseudocallus_ in the skull of corpse Number
526.
But, according to my conviction, since this skull was the only one with
signs of _pseudocallus_, it was wrong to arrive at a definite conclusion
regarding the stage of decomposition of thousands of corpses which were
contained in the Katyn graves. Besides, the observation of Professor
Orsos regarding _pseudocallus_ was made in Hungary; that is to say,
under quite different soil and climatic conditions, and withal in
individual graves and not in mass graves, as was the case in Katyn.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: You spoke about the testimony of witnesses. Did
the members of the commission have the opportunity personally to
interrogate those witnesses, especially the Russian witnesses?
MARKOV: We did not have the opportunity of having any contact with the
indigenous population. On the contrary, immediately upon our arrival at
the hotel in Smolensk, Butz told us that we were in a military zone, and
that we did not have the right to walk around in the city without being
accompanied by a member of the German Army, or to speak with the
inhabitants of the place, or to make photographs. In reality, during the
time we were there, we did not have any contact with the local
inhabitants.
On the first day of our arrival in the Katyn wood, that is to say, on 29
April, in the morning, several Russian civilians were brought under
German escort to the graves. Immediately upon our arrival at Smolensk
some of the depositions of the local witnesses were submitted to us. The
depositions were typed. When these witnesses were brought to the Katyn
wood, we were told that these witnesses were the ones who gave the
testimonies which had been submitted to us. There was no regular
interrogation of the witnesses which could have been recorded, or were
recorded. Professor Orsos started the conversation with the witnesses
and told us that he could speak Russian because he had been a prisoner
of war in Russia during the first World War. He began to speak with a
man, an elderly man whose name, so far as I can remember, was Kiselov.
Then he spoke to a second witness, whose last name so far as I can
remember was Andrejev. All the conversation lasted a few minutes only.
As our Bulgarian language is rather similar to the Russian, I tried also
to speak to some of the witnesses...
THE PRESIDENT: Don’t you think that should be left to cross-examination?
Can’t these details be left to cross-examination?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President.
I would ask you, Witness, to interrupt the reply to this question and to
answer the following one: At the time you signed this general report of
the commission, was it quite clear to you that the murders were
perpetrated in Katyn not earlier than the last quarter of 1941, and that
1940, in any case, was excluded?
MARKOV: Yes, this was absolutely clear to me and that is why I did not
make any deductions in the minutes which I made on my findings in the
Katyn wood.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Why did you sign then this general report, which
was incorrect in your opinion?
MARKOV: In order to make it quite clear under what conditions I signed
this report, I should like to say a few words on how it was made up and
how it was signed.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Excuse me, I would like to put a question to you
which defines more accurately this matter. Was this report actually
signed on 30 April 1941 in the town of Smolensk or was it signed on
another date and at another place?
MARKOV: It was not signed in Smolensk on 30 April but was signed on 1
May at noon, at the airport which was called Bela.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Will you please tell the Tribunal under what
conditions it was signed.
MARKOV: The compilation of this record was to be done at the same
conference which I already mentioned and which took place in the
laboratory of Butz in the afternoon of 30 April. Present at this
conference were all the delegates and all the Germans who had arrived
with us from Berlin: Butz and his assistants, General Staff Physician
Holm, the chief physician of the Smolensk sector, and also other German
Army officials who were unknown to me. Butz stated that the Germans were
only present as hosts, but actually the conference was presided over by
General Staff Physician Holm and the work was performed under the
direction of Butz. The secretary of the conference was the personal lady
secretary of Butz who took down the report. However, I never saw these
minutes. Butz and Orsos came with a prepared draft to this conference, a
sort of protocol; but I never learned who ordered them to draw up such a
protocol. This protocol was read by Butz and then a question was raised
regarding the state and the age of the young pines which were in the
clearings of the Katyn wood. Butz was of the opinion that in these
clearings there were graves too.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Excuse me for interrupting you. Did you have any
evidence that any graves were actually found in these clearings?
MARKOV: No. During the time we were there, no new graves were opened. As
some of the delegates said they were not competent to express their
opinion regarding the age of these trees, General Holm gave an order to
bring a German who was an expert on forestry. He showed us the cut of
the trunk of a small tree and from the number of circles in this trunk,
he deduced the trees were 5 years old.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Excuse me; I interrupt you again. You,
yourself—can you state here that this tree was actually cut down from
the grave and not from any other place in the clearing?
MARKOV: I can say only that in the Katyn wood there were some clearings
with small trees and that, while driving back to Smolensk, we took a
little tree with us in the bus, but I do not know whether there were any
graves where these trees were standing. As I have already stated, no
graves were laid open in our presence.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I would request you to continue your reply, but
very briefly and not to detain the attention of the Tribunal with
unnecessary details.
MARKOV: Some editorial notes were made in connection with this protocol,
but I do not remember what they were. Then Orsos and Butz were entrusted
with the final drafting of the record. The signing of the record was
intended to take place on the same night at a banquet which was
organized in a German Army hospital. At this banquet Butz arrived with
the minutes and he started reading them, but the actual signing did not
take place for reasons which are still not clear to me. It was stated
that this record would have to be rewritten, so the banquet lasted until
3 or 4 o’clock in the morning. Then Professor Palmieri told me that the
Germans were not pleased with the contents of the protocol and that they
were carrying on telephone conversations with Berlin and that perhaps
there would not even be a protocol at all.
Indeed, having spent the night in Smolensk without having signed the
record, we took off from Smolensk on the morning of 1 May. I personally
had the impression that no protocol at all would be issued and I was
very pleased about that. On the way to Smolensk, as well as on our way
back, some of the delegates asked to stop in Warsaw in order to see the
city, but we were told that it was impossible because of military
reasons.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: This has nothing to do with the subject. Please
keep to the facts.
MARKOV: Around noon we arrived at the airport which was called Bela. The
airport was apparently a military airfield because of the temporary
military barracks I saw there. We had dinner there and immediately after
dinner, notwithstanding the fact that we were not told that the signing
of the minutes would take place on the way to Berlin, we were submitted
copies of the protocol for signature. During the signing a number of
military persons were present, as there were no other people except
military personnel on this airfield. I was rather struck by the fact
that on the one hand the records were already completed in Smolensk but
were not submitted to us for signing there, and on the other hand that
they did not wait till we arrived in Berlin a few hours later. They were
submitted to us for signing at this isolated military airfield. This was
the reason why I signed the report, in spite of the conviction I had
acquired during the autopsy which I had performed at Smolensk.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That is to say, the date and the locality which
are shown in the protocol are incorrect?
MARKOV: Yes, that is so.