MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And you signed it because you felt yourself

compelled to?

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, I don’t think it is proper for you to

put leading questions to him. He has stated the fact. It is useless to

go on stating conclusions about it.

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

questions to put to the witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Does anyone want to cross-examine him?

DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, I should like to ask a question concerning

the legal proceedings first. Each side was to call three witnesses

before the Court. This witness, as I understand it, has not only

testified to facts but has also made statements which can be called an

expert judgment. He has not only expressed himself as an expert witness,

as we say in German law, but also as an expert. If the Court is to

listen to these statements made by the witness as an expert, I should

like to have the opportunity for the Defense also to call in an expert.

THE PRESIDENT: No, Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal will not hear more than

three witnesses on either side. You could have called any expert you

wanted or any member of the experts who made the German examination. It

was your privilege to call any of them.

DR. STAHMER: Witness, how long have you been active in the field of

medical jurisprudence?

MARKOV: I have been working in the field of medical jurisprudence since

the beginning of 1927 in the faculty for medical jurisprudence of the

University in Sofia, first as an assistant and now I am professor of

medical jurisprudence. I am not a staff professor at the university. My

position can be designated by the German word “Ausserordentlicher

Professor” (university lecturer).

DR. STAHMER: Before your visit to Katyn did your government tell you

that you were to participate in a political action without consideration

of your scientific qualification?

MARKOV: I was not told so literally, but in the press the Katyn question

was discussed as a political subject.

DR. STAHMER: Did you feel free in regard to your scientific “conscience”

at that time?

MARKOV: At what time?

DR. STAHMER: At the time when you went to Katyn?

MARKOV: The question is not quite clear to me; I should like you to

explain it.

DR. STAHMER: Did you consider the task you had to carry out there a

political one or a scientific one?

MARKOV: I understood this task from the very first moment as a political

one and therefore I tried to evade it.

DR. STAHMER: Did you realize the outstanding political importance of

this task?

MARKOV: Yes; from everything I read in the press.

DR. STAHMER: In your examination yesterday you said that when you

arrived at Katyn the graves had already been opened and certain corpses

had been carefully laid out. Do you mean to say that these corpses were

not taken from the graves at all?

MARKOV: No, I should not say that, inasmuch as it was obvious that

corpses were taken out of these graves and besides I saw that some

corpses were still in the graves.

DR. STAHMER: Then, in order to state this positively, you had no reason

to think that the corpses inspected by the commission were not taken

from these mass graves?

THE PRESIDENT: He did not know where they came from, did he?

MARKOV: Evidently from the graves which were open.

DR. STAHMER: You have already made statements to the effect that, as a

result of the medico-judicial examination by this International

Commission, a protocol, a record was taken down. You have furthermore

stated that you signed this protocol.

Mr. President, this protocol is contained in its full text in the

official data published by the German Government on this incident. I ask

that this evidence, this so-called _White Book_, be admitted as

evidence. I will submit it to the Court later.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.

[_A recess was taken._]

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal rules that you may

cross-examine this witness upon the report, and the protocol will be

admitted in evidence, if you offer it in evidence, under Article 19 of

the Charter. That, of course, involves that we do not take judicial

notice of the report under Article 21 of the Charter but that it is

offered under Article 19 of the Charter and therefore it will either

come through the earphones in cross-examination or such parts of the

protocol as you wish to have translated.

DR. STAHMER: Witness, was the protocol or the record signed by you and

the other experts compiled in the same way in which it is included in

the German _White Book_?

MARKOV: Yes, the record of the protocol which is included in the German

_White Book_ is the same protocol which I compiled. A long time after my

return to Sofia I was sent two copies of the protocol by Director Dietz.

These two copies were typewritten, and I was requested to make necessary

corrections and additions if I deemed it necessary, but I left it

without corrections and it was printed without any comments on my part.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Just a moment Dr. Stahmer...

Mr. President, I believe that there is a slight confusion here. The

witness is answering in regard to the individual protocol, whereas Dr.

Stahmer is questioning him on the general record. Thus the witness does

not answer the proper question.

DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, I would have cleared this matter up on my

own account.

[_Turning to the witness._] Do you mean your autopsy protocol?

MARKOV: I mean the protocol I compiled myself and not the general

record.

DR. STAHMER: Now, what about this general protocol or record? When did

you receive a copy of it?

MARKOV: I received a copy of the general record in Berlin where as many

copies were signed as there were delegates present.

DR. STAHMER: Just a little while ago you stated that Russian witnesses

had been taken before the commission in the wood of Katyn, but that,

however, there had been no opportunity afforded the experts to talk with

these witnesses concerning the question at hand.

Now, in this protocol, in this record, the following remark is found,

and I quote:

“The commission interrogated several indigenous Russian

witnesses personally. Among other things, these witnesses

confirmed that in the months of March and April 1940 large

shipments of Polish officers arrived almost daily at the

railroad station Gnjesdova near Katyn. These trains were

emptied, the inmates were taken in lorries to the wood of Katyn

and never seen again. Furthermore, official notice was taken of

the proofs and statements, and the documents containing the

evidence were inspected.”

MARKOV: As I already stated during the questioning, two witnesses were

interrogated on the spot by Orsos. They actually said that they saw how

Polish officers were brought to the station of Gnjesdova and that later

they did not see them again.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal thinks the witness ought to be

given an opportunity of seeing the report when you put passages in it to

him.

DR. STAHMER: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Haven’t you got another copy of it?

DR. STAHMER: I am sorry, Mr. President, I have no second copy; no.

THE PRESIDENT: Can the witness read German?

MARKOV: No, but anyhow I can understand the contents of the record.

THE PRESIDENT: You mean you can read it?

MARKOV: Yes, I can also read it.

THE PRESIDENT: Can the witness read German, do you mean?

MARKOV: Yes, I can read German.

DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, may I make a suggestion?

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, if you have only got one copy, I think you

had better have it back. You can’t have the book passing to and fro like

that.

DR. STAHMER: I should like to make the suggestion that the

cross-examination be interrupted and the other witness be called, and I

will have this material typed in the meantime. That would be a solution.

But there are only a few sentences...

THE PRESIDENT: You can read it. Take the book back.

DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, I propose to read only a few short

sentences.

[_Turning to the witness._] Yesterday you testified, Witness, that the

experts restricted or limited themselves to making an autopsy on one

corpse only. In this report the following is set down—I quote:

“The members of the commission personally performed an autopsy

on nine corpses and numerous selected cases were submitted for

post-mortem examination.”

Is that right?

MARKOV: That is right. Those of the members of the commission who were

medical experts, with the exception of Professor Naville, performed each

an autopsy on a corpse. Hajek made two autopsies.

DR. STAHMER: In this instance we are not interested in the autopsy, but

in the post-mortem examination.

MARKOV: The corpses were examined but only superficially during an

inspection which we carried out very hastily on the first day. No

individual autopsy was carried out, but the corpses were merely looked

at as they lay side by side.

DR. STAHMER: I should like to ask you now what is meant in medical

science by the concept “post-mortem examination.”

MARKOV: We differentiate between an exterior inspection, when the corpse

has to be undressed and minutely examined externally, and an internal

inspection, when the inner organs of the corpse are examined. This was

not done with the hundreds of bodies at Katyn, as it was not physically

possible. We were there only one forenoon. Therefore, I consider that

there was no actual medico-judicial expert examination of these corpses

in the real sense of the word.

DR. STAHMER: A little while ago you talked about the trees that were

growing there on these graves, and you said that an expert explained the

age of the trees by the rings counted on a trunk. In the protocol and

the report the following is set down. I quote:

“According to the opinion of the members of the commission and

the testimony of forest ranger Von Herff, who was called in as

an expert on forestry, they were small pine trees of at least 5

years of age, badly developed because they had been standing in

the shade of large trees and had been transplanted to this spot

about 3 years ago.”

Now, I would like to ask you, is it correct that you undertook a local

inspection and that you convinced yourself on the spot whether the

statements made by the forestry expert were actually correct?

MARKOV: Our personal impression and my personal conviction in this

question only refer to the fact that in the wood of Katyn there were

clearings where small trees were growing and that the afore-mentioned

expert showed us a cross section of a tree with its circles. But I do

not consider myself competent and cannot give an opinion as to whether

the deductions which are set forth in the record are correct or not.

Precisely for that reason it was judged necessary to call in a forestry

expert, for we doctors were not competent to decide this question.

Therefore, these conclusions are merely the conclusions of a competent

German expert.

DR. STAHMER: But after having had a first-hand view, did you doubt the

truth of these statements?

MARKOV: After the German expert had expressed his opinion at the

conference of the delegates, neither I nor the other delegates expressed

any opinion as to whether his conclusions were correct or not. These

conclusions are set down in the record in the form in which the expert

expressed himself.

DR. STAHMER: According to your autopsy report the corpse of the Polish

officer which you dissected was clothed and you described the clothing

in detail. Was this winter or summer clothing that you found?

MARKOV: It was winter clothing including an overcoat and a woolen shawl

around the neck.

DR. STAHMER: In the protocol it says further and I quote:

“Furthermore, Polish cigarettes and matchboxes were found with

the dead; in some cases tobacco containers and cigarette

holders, and ‘Kosielsk’ was inscribed thereon.”

The question is, did you see these objects?

MARKOV: We actually saw these tobacco boxes with the name “Kosielsk”

engraved thereon. They were exhibited to us in the glass case which was

shown to us in the peasant hut not far from the Katyn wood. I remember

them because Butz drew our attention to them.

DR. STAHMER: In your autopsy report, Witness, there is the following

remark, and I quote:

“In the clothing documents were found and they were put in the

folder Number 827.”

Now, I should like to ask you: How did you discover these documents? Did

you personally take them out of the pockets?

MARKOV: These papers were in the pockets of the overcoat and of the

jacket. As far as I can remember they were taken out by a German who was

undressing the corpse in my presence.

DR. STAHMER: At that time were the documents already in the envelope?

MARKOV: They were not yet in the envelope, but after they had been taken

out of the pockets they were put into an envelope which bore the number

of the corpse. We were told that this was the usual method of procedure.

DR. STAHMER: What was the nature of the documents?

MARKOV: I did not examine them at all, as I have already said, and I

refused to do so, but according to the size, I believe that they were

certificates of identity. I could distinguish individual letters, but I

do not know whether one could read the inscription, for I did not

attempt to do so.

DR. STAHMER: In the protocol the following statement is made, and I

quote:

“The documents found with the corpses (diaries, letters, and

newspapers) were dated from the fall of 1939 until March and

April 1940. The latest date which could be ascertained was the

date of a Russian newspaper of 22 April 1940.”

Now, I should like to ask you if this statement is correct and whether

it is in accordance with the findings that you made?

MARKOV: Such letters and newspapers were indeed in the glass cases and

were shown to us. Some such papers were found by members of the

commission who were dissecting the bodies, and if I remember rightly,

they described the contents of these documents, but I did not do so.

DR. STAHMER: In your examination just a little while ago you stated that

only a few scientific details were contained in this protocol and that

this was probably done intentionally. I should like to quote from this

record as follows:

“Various degrees and types of decomposition were caused by the

position of the bodies to one another in the grave. Aside from

some mummification on the surface and around the edges of the

mass of corpses, some damp maceration was found among the center

corpses. The sticking together of the adjacent corpses and the

soldering together of corpses through cadaverous acids and

fluids which had thickened, and particularly the deformations

that obtained from the pressure among the corpses, show that the

corpses were buried there right from the beginning.

“Among the corpses, insects or remains of insects which might

date back to the time of burial are entirely lacking, and from

this it may be gathered that the shooting and the burial took

place at a season which was cold and free from insects.”

Now, I should like to ask you if these statements are correct and if

they are in line with your findings.

MARKOV: I stated that little was said on the condition of the corpses,

and indeed as can be judged by the quotation which I had in mind, only a

general phraseology is used concerning the various degrees of

decomposition of the corpses, but no concrete or detailed description of

the condition of the corpses is made.

As to the insects and their larvae, the assertion of the general report

that none were discovered is in flagrant contradiction to the

conclusions of Professor Palmieri, which are recorded in his personal

minutes concerning the corpse which he himself dissected. In this

protocol, which is published in the same German White Book, it is said

that there were traces of remains of insects and their larvae in the

mouths of the corpses.

DR. STAHMER: Just a little while ago you spoke of the scientific

examination of skulls undertaken by Professor Orsos. The record also

refers to this matter, and I quote:

“A large number of skulls were examined with respect to the

changes they had undergone, which, according to the background

and experience of Professor Orsos, would be of great value in

fixing the date of death. In this connection, we are concerned

with stratified encrustations on the surface of the mush found

in the skull as a residue of the brain. These symptoms are not

to be found among corpses which have been in their graves for

less than 3 years. Such a condition, among other things, was

found in a very decided form in the skull of corpse Number 526,

which was found near the surface of a large mass grave.”

I should like to ask you now if it is correct that, according to the

report of Professor Orsos, such a condition was discovered not only as

is said here on the skull of one corpse, but among other corpses also.

MARKOV: I can answer this question quite categorically. We were shown

only one skull, the one precisely mentioned in the record under the

Number 526. I do not know that other skulls were examined, as the record

seems to imply. I am of the opinion that Professor Orsos had no

possibility of examining many corpses in the Katyn wood, for he came

with us and left with us. That means he stayed in the Katyn wood just as

long as I and all the other members of the commission did.

DR. STAHMER: Finally, I should like to quote the conclusion of the

summarizing expert opinion, in which it is stated:

“From statements made by witnesses, from the letters and

correspondence, diaries, newspapers, and so forth, found on the

corpses, it may be seen that the shootings took place in the

months of March and April 1940. The following are in complete

agreement with the findings made with regard to the mass graves

and the individual corpses of the Polish officers, as described

in the report.”

Is this statement actually correct?

THE PRESIDENT: I did not quite understand the statement. As I heard you

read it, it was something like this: From the statements of witnesses,

letters, and so forth ...

DR. STAHMER: “...in complete agreement with the findings made with

regard to the mass graves and the individual corpses of the Polish

officers and described in the report.” That is the end of the quotation.

THE PRESIDENT: It doesn’t say that the following persons are in complete

agreement, but that the following facts are in complete agreement. Is

that right?

DR. STAHMER: No. My question is: “Is this statement approved by you? Do

you agree with it?”

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I know, but you read out certain words, which were

these: “The following are in complete agreement.” What I want to know is

whether that means that the following persons are in complete agreement,

or whether the following facts are in complete agreement.

DR. STAHMER: Special facts had been set down, and this is a summarizing

expert opinion signed by all the members of the commission. Therefore,

we have here a scientific explanation of the real facts.

THE PRESIDENT: Would you just listen to what I read out from what I took

down? “From the statements of witnesses, letters, and other documents,

it may be seen that the shooting took place in the months of March and

April 1940. The following are in complete agreement.” What I am asking

you is this—

[_Dr. Stahmer attempted to interrupt._]

Just a moment, Dr. Stahmer, listen to what I say. What I am asking you

is: Does the statement mean that the following persons are in complete

agreement, or that the following facts are in complete agreement?

DR. STAHMER: No, no. The following people testify that this fact, the

fact that the shootings took place in the months of March and April

1940, agrees with the results of their investigations of the mass graves

and of individual corpses. That is what is meant and that is the

conclusion. What has been found here is in agreement with that which has

been set down and determined scientifically. That is the meaning.

THE PRESIDENT: Go on.

DR. STAHMER: Is this final deduction in accord with your scientific

conviction?

MARKOV: I have already indicated that this statement regarding the

condition of the corpses is based on the date resulting from testimony

by the witnesses and from the available documents, but it is in

contradiction to the observations I made on the corpse which I

dissected. That means I did not consider that the results of the

autopsies corroborated the presumable date of death to be taken from the

testimony or the documents. If I had been convinced that the condition

of the corpses did indeed correspond to the date of decease mentioned by

the Germans, I would have given such a statement in my individual

protocol.

When I saw the signed protocol I became suspicious as to the last

sentence of the record—the sentence which precedes the signatures. I

always had doubts whether this sentence was contained in that draft of

the protocol which we saw at the conference in Smolensk.

As far as I could understand, the draft of the protocol which had been

elaborated in Smolensk only stated that we actually were shown papers

and that we heard witnesses; and this was supposed to prove that the

killings were carried out in March or April of 1940.

I was of the opinion that the fact that the conclusion was not based on

medical opinion and not supported absolutely by medical reports and

examination, was the reason why the signing of the protocol was

postponed and why the record was not signed in Smolensk.

DR. STAHMER: Witness, at the beginning of my examination you stated that

you were fully aware of the political significance of your task. Why,

then, did you desist from protesting against this report which was not

in accord with your scientific conviction?

MARKOV: I have already said that I signed the protocol as I was

convinced that the circumstances at this isolated military airfield

offered no other possibility, and therefore I could not make any

objections.

DR. STAHMER: Why did you not take steps later on?

MARKOV: My conduct after the signing of the protocol corresponds fully

to what I am stating here, I repeat. I was not convinced of the truth of

the German version. I was invited many times to Berlin by Director

Dietz. I was also invited to Sofia by the German Embassy. And in

Bulgaria, the Bulgarian Foreign Office also invited me to make a public

statement over the radio and to the press; and I was requested to say

what conclusions we had come to during our investigation. However, I did

not do so, and I always refused to do so. Because of the political

situation in which we found ourselves at that moment, I could not make a

public statement declaring the German version was wrong.

Concerning that matter there were quite sharp words exchanged between me

and the German Embassy in Sofia. And when, a few months later, another

Bulgarian representative was asked to be sent as a member of a similar

commission for the investigation of the corpses in Vinnitza in the

Ukraine, the German Ambassador Beckerly stated quite openly to the

Bulgarian Foreign Office that the Germans did not wish me to be sent to

Vinnitza.

That indicated that the Germans very well understood my behavior and my

opinion on that matter. Concerning this question, Minister

Plenipotentiary Saratov, of our Foreign Office, still has shorthand

records about conversations which, if the Honored Tribunal considers it

necessary, can be sent here from Bulgaria.

Therefore, all my refusals, after I had signed the protocol, to carry on

any activity for the purpose of propaganda, fully correspond to what I

said here, namely that the conclusions laid down in the collective

protocol do not answer my personal conviction. And I will repeat that if

I had been convinced that the corpses were buried for 3 years, I would

have testified this after having dissected a corpse. But I have left my

personal protocol incomplete and this is a quite unusual thing in the

case of medico-judicial examination.

DR. STAHMER: The protocol was not signed by you alone, but on the

contrary it carries the signatures of 11 representatives of science,

whose names you gave yesterday, some of them of world renown. Among

these men we find a scientist of a neutral country, Professor Naville.

Did you take the opportunity to get in touch with one of these experts

in the meantime with a view of reaching a rectification of the report?

MARKOV: I cannot say on what considerations the other delegates signed

the protocol. But they also signed it under the same circumstances as I

did. However, when I read the individual protocols, I notice that they

also refrained from stating the precise date of the killing of the man

whose corpse they had dissected. There was one exception only, as I have

already said. That was Professor Miloslavich, who was the only one who

asserted that the corpse which he had dissected was that of a man buried

for at least 3 years. After the signing of the protocol, I did not have

any contact with any of the persons who had signed the collective

protocol.

DR. STAHMER: Witness, you gave two versions, one in the protocol which

we have just discussed, and another here before the Court. Which version

is the correct one?

MARKOV: I do not understand which two versions you are speaking about.

Will you please explain it?

DR. STAHMER: In the first version, in the protocol, it is set forth that

according to the conclusion which had been made, the shooting must have

taken place 3 years ago. Today you testified that the findings were not

correct, and between the shooting and the time of your investigations

there could only be a space of perhaps 18 months.

MARKOV: I stated that the conclusions of the collective protocol do not

correspond with my personal conviction.

DR. STAHMER: “Did not correspond” or “do not correspond with your

conviction”?

MARKOV: It did not and it does not correspond with my opinion then and

now.

DR. STAHMER: I have no further questions.

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

put to this witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Witness, were any of the bodies which were examined by

the members of this delegation exhumed from the ground in your presence?

MARKOV: The corpses which we dissected were selected among the top

layers of the graves which had been already exhumed. They were taken out

of the graves and given to us for dissection.

THE PRESIDENT: Was there anything to indicate, in your opinion, that the

corpses had not been buried in those graves?

MARKOV: As far as traces are concerned, and as far as the layers of

corpses were preserved, they were stuck to each other; so that if they

had been transferred, I do not believe that this could have been done

recently. This could not have been done immediately before our arrival.

THE PRESIDENT: You mean that you think the corpses had been buried in

those graves?

MARKOV: I cannot say whether they were put into those graves immediately

after death had come, as I have no data to confirm this, but they did

not look as if they had just been put there.

THE PRESIDENT: Is it possible, in your opinion as an expert, to fix the

date of March or April or such a short period as that, 3 years before

the examination which you have made?

MARKOV: I believe that if one relies exclusively on medical data, that

is to say, on the state and condition of the corpses, it is impossible,

when it is a question of years, to determine the date with such

precision and say accurately whether they were killed in March or in

April. Therefore, apparently the months of March and April were not

based on the medical data, for that would be impossible, but on the

testimony of the witnesses and on the documents which were shown us.

THE PRESIDENT: When you got back to Sofia, you said that the protocol

was sent to you for your observations and for your corrections and that

you made none. Why was that?

MARKOV: We are concerned with the individual protocol which I compiled.

I did not supplement it by making any conclusion, I did not add any

conclusion because it was sent to me by the Germans and because in

general at that time the political situation in our country was such

that I could not declare publicly that the German version was not a true

one.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean that your personal protocol alone was sent to

you at Sofia?

MARKOV: Yes, only my personal protocol was sent to Sofia. As to the

collective protocol, I brought that back myself to Sofia and handed it

over to our Foreign Minister.

THE PRESIDENT: Is your personal protocol, in the words that you drew it

up, incorporated in the whole protocol and signed by all the delegates?

MARKOV: In my personal protocol there is only a description of the

corpse and of the clothing of the corpse which I dissected.

THE PRESIDENT: That is not the question I asked.

MARKOV: In the general protocol a rough description only is made,

concerning the clothing and the degree of decomposition.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, do you mean that your personal protocol...

MARKOV: I consider that the personal protocols are more accurate

regarding the condition of the corpses, because they were compiled

during the dissection and were dictated on the spot to the

stenographers.

THE PRESIDENT: Just listen to the question, please. Is your personal

protocol, in the words in which you drew it up, incorporated in the

collective protocol in the same words?

MARKOV: My own protocol is not included in the general record, but it is

included in the _White Book_ which the Germans published together with

the general record.

THE PRESIDENT: It is there, then, in the report, is it? It is in the

_White Book_?

MARKOV: Yes, quite right. It is included in this book.

THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire. Yes, Colonel Smirnov, do you have

another witness?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President. I beg you to allow me to

call as a witness, Professor of Medical Jurisprudence Prosorovski.

[_The witness Prosorovski took the stand._]

THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name, please.

VICTOR IL’ICH PROSOROVSKI (Witness): Prosorovski, Victor Il’ich.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me:

I, citizen of the U.S.S.R.—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 and withhold nothing.

[_The witness repeated the oath._]

THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Witness, just before questioning you, I beg you

to adhere to the following order. After my question, please pause in

order to allow the interpreters to make the translation, and speak as

slowly as possible.

Will you give the Tribunal very briefly some information about your

scientific activity, and your past work as a medico-judicial doctor.

PROSOROVSKI: I am a doctor by profession; professor of medical

jurisprudence and a doctor of medical science. I am the Chief Medical

Expert of the Ministry of Public Health of the Soviet Union. I am the

Director of the Scientific Research Institute for Medical Jurisprudence

at the Ministry of Public Health of the U.S.S.R.; my business is mainly

of a scientific nature; I am President of the Medico-Judicial Commission

of the Scientific Medical Council of the Ministry of Public Health of

the U.S.S.R.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: How long did you practice as a medico-judicial

expert?

PROSOROVSKI: I practiced for 17 years in that sphere.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: What kind of participation was yours in the

investigation of the mass crimes of the Hitlerites against the Polish

officers in Katyn?

PROSOROVSKI: The President of the Special Commission for investigation

and ascertaining of the circumstances of the shootings by the German

Fascist aggressors of Polish officers, Academician Nicolai Ilych

Burdenko, offered me in the beginning of January 1944 the chairmanship

of the Medico-Judicial Commission of experts. Apart from this

organizational activity, I participated personally in the exhumations

and examination of these corpses.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, perhaps that would be a good time to

break off.

[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]

_Afternoon Session_

THE MARSHAL: May it please the Tribunal, the Defendants Hess, Fritzsche,

and Von Ribbentrop are absent.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I continue the examination of this witness,

Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell me, how far from the town of

Smolensk were the burial grounds where the corpses were discovered?

PROSOROVSKI: A commission of medico-legal experts, together with members

of the special commission, Academician Burdenko, Academician Potemkin,

Academician Tolstoy, and other members of this commission, betook

themselves on 14 January 1944 to the burial grounds of the Polish

officers in the so-called Katyn wood. This spot is located about 15

kilometers from the town of Smolensk. These burial grounds were situated

on a slope at a distance of about 200 meters from the Vitebsk high road.

One of these graves was about 60 meters long and 60 meters wide; the

other one, situated a small distance from this first grave, was about 7

meters long and 6 meters wide.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: How many corpses were exhumed by the commission

you headed?

PROSOROVSKI: In the Katyn wood the commission of medical experts exhumed

and examined, from various graves and from various depths, altogether

925 corpses.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: How was the work of exhumation done and how many

assistants were employed by you on this work?

PROSOROVSKI: Specialists and medico-legal experts participated in the

work of this commission. In September and October 1943 they had exhumed

and examined the corpses of the victims shot by the Germans...

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Where was the examination of the corpses

performed?

PROSOROVSKI: They examined them in the town and the neighborhood of

Smolensk. Among the members of this commission were Professor

Prosorovski; Professor Smolianinov; the eldest and most learned

collaborator of the Medico-Legal Research Institute, Dr. Semenovski;

Professor of Pathological Anatomy Voropaev; Professor of Legal Chemistry

Schwaikova, who was invited for consultations on chemico-legal subjects.

To assist this commission, they called also medico-legal experts from

the forces. Among them were the medical student Nikolski, Dr.

Soubbotin...

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I doubt whether the Tribunal is interested in

all these names. I ask you to answer the following question: What method

of examination was chosen by you? What I mean is, did you strip the

corpses of their clothes and were you satisfied with the customary post

mortem examination or was every single one of these 925 corpses

thoroughly examined?

PROSOROVSKI: After exhumation of the corpses, they were thoroughly

searched, particularly their clothing. Then an exterior examination was

carried out and then they were subjected to a complete medico-legal

dissection of all three parts of the body; that is to say, the skull,

the chest, and the abdomen, as well as all the inner organs of these

corpses.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Please tell me whether the corpses exhumed from

these burial grounds bore traces of a previous medical examination?

PROSOROVSKI: Out of the 925 corpses which we examined, only three had

already been dissected; and that was a partial examination of the skulls

only. On all the others no traces of previous medical examination could

be ascertained. They were clothed; and the jackets, trousers, and shirts

were buttoned, the belts were strapped, and the knots of ties had not

been undone. Neither on the head nor on the body were there any traces

of cuts or other traces of medico-legal examination. Therefore this

excludes the possibility of their having been subjected to any previous

medico-legal examination.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: During the medico-legal examination which was

carried out by your commission, did you open the skulls?

PROSOROVSKI: Of course. At the examination of quite a number of corpses

the skull was opened and the contents of the skull were examined.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Are you acquainted with the expression

“pseudocallus?”

PROSOROVSKI: I heard of it when I received a book in 1945 in the

Institute of Medico-Legal Science. Before that not a single medical

legal expert observed any similar phenomena in the Soviet Union.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Among the 925 skulls which you examined, were

there many cases of _pseudocallus_?

PROSOROVSKI: Not one of the medico-legal experts who were examining

these 925 corpses observed lime deposits on the inner side of the

cranium or on any other part of the skull.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Therefore, there was no sign of _pseudocallus_

on any of the skulls.

PROSOROVSKI: No.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Was the clothing also examined?

PROSOROVSKI: As already stated, the clothing was thoroughly examined.

Upon the request of the Special Commission, and in the presence of its

members and of the Metropolitan Nikolai, Academician Burdenko, and

others, the medico-legal experts examined the clothing, the pockets of

the trousers, of the coats, and of the overcoats. As a rule, the pockets

were either turned, torn open, or cut open, and this testified to the

fact that they had already been searched. The clothing itself, the

overcoats, the jackets, and the trousers as well as the shirts, were

moist with corpse liquids. This clothing could not be torn asunder, in

spite of violent effort.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Therefore, the tissue of the clothing was solid?

PROSOROVSKI: Yes, the tissue was very solid, and of course, it was

besmeared with earth.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: During the examination, did you look into the

pockets of the clothing and did you find any documents in them?

PROSOROVSKI: As I said, most of the pockets were turned out or cut; but

some of them remained intact. In these pockets, and also under the

lining of the overcoats and of the trousers we discovered, for instance,

notes, pamphlets, papers, closed and open letters and postcards,

cigarette paper, cigarette holders, pipes, and so forth, and even

valuables were found, such as ingots of gold and gold coins.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: These details are not very relevant, and

therefore I beg you to refrain from giving them. I would like you to

answer the following question: Did you discover in the clothing

documents dated the end of 1940 and also dated 1941?

PROSOROVSKI: Yes. I discovered such documents, and my colleagues also

found some. Professor Smolianinov, for instance, discovered on one of

the corpses a letter written in Russian, and it was sent by Sophie

Zigon, addressed to the Red Cross in Moscow, with the request to

communicate to her the address of her husband, Thomas Zigon. The date of

this letter was 12 September 1940. Besides the envelope bore the stamp

of a post office in Warsaw of September 1940, and also the stamp of the

Moscow post office, dated 28 September 1940.

Another document of the same sort was discovered. It was a postcard sent

from Tarnopol, with the post office cancellation: “Tarnopol, 12

September 1940.”

Then we discovered receipts with dates, one in particular with the

name—if I am not mistaken—of Orashkevitch, certifying to the receipt

of money with the date of 6 April 1941, and another receipt in his name,

also referring to a money deposit, was dated 5 May 1941.

Then, I myself discovered a letter with the date 20 June 1941, with the

name of Irene Tutchinski, as well as other documents of the same sort.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: During the medico-legal examination of the

corpses, were any bullets or cartridge cases discovered? Please tell us

what was the mark on these cartridge cases? Were they of Soviet make or

of foreign make; and if they were foreign make, which one, and what was

the caliber?

PROSOROVSKI: The cause of death of the Polish officers was bullet wounds

in the nape of the neck. In the tissue of the brain or in the bone of

the skull we discovered bullets which were more or less deformed. As to

cartridge cases, we did indeed discover, during the exhumation,

cartridge cases of German origin, for on their bases we found the mark

G-e-c-o, Geco.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: One minute, Witness.

I will now read an original German document and I beg the permission of

the Tribunal to submit a series of documents which have been offered us

by our American colleagues, Document Number 402-PS, Exhibit USSR-507. It

concerns German correspondence and telegrams on Katyn, and these

telegrams are sent by an official of the Government General, Heinrich,

to the Government of the Government General.

I submit the original document to the Court. I am only going to read one

document, a very short one, in connection with the cartridge cases

discovered in the mass graves. The telegram is addressed to the

Government of the Government General, care of First Administrative

Counsellor Weirauch in Kraków. It is marked:

“Urgent, to be delivered at once, secret.

“Part of the Polish Red Cross returned yesterday from Katyn. The

employees of the Polish Red Cross have brought with them the

cartridge cases which were used in shooting the victims of

Katyn. It appears that these are German munitions. The caliber

is 7.65. They are from the firm Geco. Letter follows.”

signed—“Heinrich.”

[_Turning to the witness._] Were the cartridge cases and cartridges

which were discovered by you of the same caliber and did they bear the

mark of the same firm?

PROSOROVSKI: As I have already stated, the bullets discovered in the

bullet wounds were 7.65 caliber. The cases discovered during the

exhumation did indeed bear the trademark of the firm Geco.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I now ask you to describe in detail the

condition of the body tissues and of the inner organs of the corpses

exhumed from the graves of Katyn.

PROSOROVSKI: The skin and the inner organs of the corpses were well

preserved. The muscles of the body and of the limbs had kept their

structure. The muscles of the heart had also kept their characteristic

structure. The substance of the brain was, in some cases, putrified; but

in most cases, it had kept its structural characteristics quite

definitely, showing a clear distinction between the gray and white

matters. Changes in the inner organs were mainly a sagging and

shrinking. The hair from the head could be easily pulled out.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: From the examination of the corpses, to what

conclusion did you come as to the date of death and date of burial?

PROSOROVSKI: On the basis of the experience I have gained and on the

experiences of Smolianinov, Semenovski, and other members of the

commission...

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: One moment, Witness. I would like you to tell

the Tribunal briefly what these experiences were and how many corpses

were exhumed. Did you personally exhume them or were they exhumed in

your presence?

PROSOROVSKI: In the course of the great War, I was often medico-legal

expert during the exhumation and the examination of corpses of victims

who were shot by the Germans. These executions occurred in the town of

Krasnodar and its neighborhood, in the town of Kharkov and its

neighborhood, in the town of Smolensk and its neighborhood, in the

so-called extermination camp of Maidanek, near Lublin, so that all told

more than 5,000 corpses were exhumed and examined with my personal

co-operation.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Considering your experience and your objective

observations, to what conclusions did you arrive as to the date of the

death and the burial of the victims of Katyn?

PROSOROVSKI: What I have just said applies to me as well as to many of

my colleagues who participated in this work. The commission came to the

unanimous conclusion that the burial of the Polish officers in the Katyn

graves was carried out about 2 years before, if you count from January,

the month of January 1944—that is to say that the date was autumn 1941.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Did the condition of the corpses allow the

conclusion that they were buried in 1940, objectively speaking?

PROSOROVSKI: The medico-legal examination of the corpses buried in the

Katyn wood, when compared with the modifications and changes which were

noticed by us during former exhumations on many occasions and also

material evidence, allowed us to come to the conclusion that the time of

the burial could not have been previous to the autumn of 1941.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Therefore, the year 1940 is out of question?

PROSOROVSKI: Yes, it is completely excluded.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: If I understood you rightly you were also

medico-legal expert in the case of other shootings in the district of

Smolensk?

PROSOROVSKI: In the district of Smolensk and its environs I have exhumed

and examined together with my assistants another 1,173 corpses, besides

those of Katyn. They were exhumed from 87 graves.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: How did the Germans camouflage the common graves

of the victims which they had shot?

PROSOROVSKI: In the district of Smolensk, in Gadeonovka, the following

method was used:

The top layer of earth on these graves was covered with turf, and in

some cases, as in Gadeonovka, young trees were planted as well as

bushes; all this with a view to camouflaging. Besides, in the so-called

Engineers’ Garden of the town of Smolensk, the graves were covered with

bricks and paths were laid out.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: So you exhumed more than 5,000 corpses in

various parts of the Soviet Union.

PROSOROVSKI: Yes.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: What were the causes of death of the victims in

most cases?

PROSOROVSKI: In most cases the cause of death was a bullet wound in the

head, or in the nape of the neck.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Were the causes of death at Katyn similar to

those met with in other parts of the Soviet Union? I am speaking of

mass-shootings.

PROSOROVSKI: All shootings were carried out by one and the same method,

namely, a shot in the nape of the neck, at pointblank range. The exit

hole was usually on the forehead or in the face.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I will read the last paragraph of your account

on Katyn, mentioned in the report of the Extraordinary Soviet State

Commission:

“The commission of the experts emphasizes the absolute

uniformity of the method of shooting the Polish prisoners of war

with that used for the shootings of Soviet prisoners of war and

Soviet civilians. Such shootings were carried out on a vast

scale by the German Fascist authorities during the temporary

occupation of territories of the U.S.S.R., for instance, in the

towns of Smolensk, Orel, Kharkov, Krasnodar and Voroneszh.”

Do you corroborate this conclusion?

PROSOROVSKI: Yes, this is the typical method used by the Germans to

exterminate peace-loving citizens.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have no further questions to put to this

witness, Mr. President.

DR. STAHMER: Where is your permanent residence, Witness?

PROSOROVSKI: I was born in Moscow and have my domicile there.

DR. STAHMER: How long have you been in the Commissariat for Health?

PROSOROVSKI: I have been working in institutions for public health since

1931 and am at present in the Ministry of Public Health. Before that I

was a candidate for the chair of forensic medicine at Moscow University.

DR. STAHMER: In this commission were there also foreign scientists?

PROSOROVSKI: In this commission there were no foreign medico-legal

experts, but the exhumation and examination of these corpses could be

attended by anybody who was interested. Foreign journalists, I believe

12 in number, came to the burial grounds and I showed them the corpses,

the graves, the clothing, and so on—in short everything they were

interested in.

DR. STAHMER: Were there any foreign scientists present?

PROSOROVSKI: I repeat again that no one was present apart from Soviet

experts of the medico-legal commission.

DR. STAHMER: Can you give the names of the members of the press?

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, he was giving a long list of names before

and he was stopped by his counsel.

Why do you shake your head?

DR. STAHMER: I did not understand, Mr. President, the one list of names.

He gave a list of names of the members of the commission. My question is

that: The witness has just said that members of the foreign press were

present and that the results of the investigation were presented to

them. I am now asking for the names of these members of the foreign

press.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, go on.

DR. STAHMER: Will you please give me the names of the members of the

press, or at least the names of those who were present and to whom you

presented the results of the examination?

PROSOROVSKI: Unhappily I cannot give you those names now here; but I

believe that if it is necessary, I would be able to find them. I shall

ascertain the names of all those foreign correspondents who were present

at the exhumation of the corpses.

DR. STAHMER: The statement about the number of corpses exhumed and

examined by you seems to have changed somewhat according to my notes,

but I may have misunderstood. Once you mentioned 5,000 and another time

925. Which figure is the correct one?

PROSOROVSKI: You did not hear properly. I said that 925 corpses had been

exhumed in the Katyn wood, but in general I personally exhumed or was

present at the exhumation of over 5,000 in many towns of the Soviet

Union after the liberation of the territories from the Germans.

DR. STAHMER: Were you actually present at the exhumation?

PROSOROVSKI: Yes.

DR. STAHMER: How long did you work at these exhumations?

PROSOROVSKI: As I told you, on 14 January a group of medico-legal

experts left for the site of the burial grounds together with the

members of a special commission.

THE PRESIDENT: Can you not just say how long it took—the whole

exhumation? In other words, to shorten it, can you not say how long it

took?

PROSOROVSKI: Very well. The exhumation and part of the examination of

the corpses lasted from 16 to 23 January 1944.

DR. STAHMER: Did you find only Polish officers?

PROSOROVSKI: All the corpses, with the exception of two which were found

in civilian clothing, were in Polish uniforms and were therefore members

of the Polish Army.

DR. STAHMER: Did you try to determine from what camp these Polish

officers came originally?

PROSOROVSKI: That was not one of my duties. I was concerned only with

the medico-legal examination of the corpses.

DR. STAHMER: You did not learn in any other way from what camp they

came?

PROSOROVSKI: In the receipts which were found, dated 1941, it was stated

that the money was received in camp 10-N. It can therefore be assumed

that the camp number was obviously of particular importance.

DR. STAHMER: Did you know of the Kosielsk Camp?

PROSOROVSKI: Only from hearsay. I have not been there.

DR. STAHMER: Do you know that Polish officers were kept prisoners there?

PROSOROVSKI: I can say only what I heard. I heard that Polish officers

were there, but I have not seen them myself nor have I been anywhere

near there.

DR. STAHMER: Did you learn anything about the fate of these officers?

PROSOROVSKI: Since I did not make the investigations, I cannot say

anything about the fate of these officers. About the fate of the

officers, whose corpses were discovered in the graves of Katyn, I have

already spoken.

DR. STAHMER: How many officers did you find altogether in the burial

grounds at Katyn?

PROSOROVSKI: We did not separate the corpses according to their rank;

but, in all, there were 925 corpses exhumed and examined.

DR. STAHMER: Was that the majority?

PROSOROVSKI: The coats and tunics of many corpses bore shoulder straps

with insignia indicating officers’ rank. But even today I could not

distinguish the insignia of rank of the Polish officers.

DR. STAHMER: What happened to the documents which were found on the

Polish prisoners?

PROSOROVSKI: By order of the special commission the searching of the

clothing was done by the medico-legal experts. When these experts

discovered documents they looked them through, examined them, and handed

them over to the members of the special commission, either to

Academician Burdenko or Academician Tolstoy, Potemkin, or any other

members of the commission. Obviously these documents are in the archives

of the Extraordinary State Commission.

DR. STAHMER: Are you of the opinion that from the medical findings

regarding the corpses the time when they were killed can be determined

with certainty?

PROSOROVSKI: In determining the date on which these corpses had

presumably been buried, we were guided by the experience which we had

gathered in numerous previous exhumations and also found support by

material evidence discovered by the medico-legal experts. Thus we were

able to establish beyond doubt that the Polish officers were buried in

the fall of 1941.

DR. STAHMER: I asked whether from the medical findings you could

determine this definitely and whether you did so.

PROSOROVSKI: I can again confirm what I have already said. Since we had

great experience in mass exhumations, we came to that conclusion, in

corroboration of which we also had much material evidence, which enabled

us to determine the autumn of 1941 as the time of the burial of the

Polish officers.

DR. STAHMER: I have no more questions to put to this witness. Mr.

President, an explanation regarding the document which was just

submitted; I have here only a copy signed by Heinrich; I have not seen

the original.

THE PRESIDENT: I imagine the original is there.

DR. STAHMER: Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Colonel Smirnov, do you want to re-examine?

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

put to this witness; but with the permission of the Tribunal, I would

like to make a brief statement.

We were allowed to choose from among the 120 witnesses whom we

interrogated in the case of Katyn, only three. If the Tribunal is

interested in hearing any other witnesses named in the reports of the

Extraordinary State Commission, we have, in the majority of cases,

adequate affidavits which we can submit at the Tribunal’s request.

Moreover, any one of these persons can be called to this Court if the

Tribunal so desires.

That is all I have to say upon this matter.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer?

DR. STAHMER: I have no objection to the further presentation of evidence

as long as it is on an equal basis; that is, if I, too, have the

opportunity to offer further evidence. I am also in a position to call

further witnesses and experts for the Court.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has already made its order; it does not

propose to hear further evidence.

DR. STAHMER: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.

The Tribunal wishes to hear Dr. Bergold with reference to finishing the

case of the Defendant Bormann, and the Tribunal also understands that

counsel for the Defendant Von Neurath has some documents which he wishes

to present.

Dr. Von Lüdinghausen, have you some documents for Von Neurath?

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you present them now?

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, I have here two types of documents.

One type includes the documents which I have already offered in

presenting my evidence, and to which I have called the attention of the

Court. They are all in the document books which have been submitted to

the Court, and I believe it will be sufficient to hand these documents

to the General Secretary.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Lüdinghausen, you have already offered them in

evidence and they all have numbers, have they not?

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Then I have a number of documents, probably 12 or

15, which have also been included in my document books, in translation.

However, I have not yet mentioned these documents in my presentation

recently, and have not yet asked the Court to take judicial notice of

them. If I may refer to them briefly, they are as follows:

A letter from Von Neurath to Hitler of 19 June 1933.

A copy of the minutes of the withdrawal of the Inter-Allied Military

Commission in 1926.

A speech...

THE PRESIDENT: Will you kindly give them the exhibit numbers which they

are to have as you offer them in evidence?

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: The first one is a letter to Hitler of 19 June 1933. What

number will that letter have?

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: That is Number 12.

Number 32, minutes on the withdrawal of the Inter-Allied Military

Commission.

Number 50, a speech of Prime Minister MacDonald of 16 March 1933.

Number 51, an article of Von Neurath on the League of Nations, in the

periodical _Der Völkerbund_ of 11 May 1933.

Number 52, Hitler’s speech of 17 May 1933, the so-called “Peace Speech.”

Number 53, a statement of the German Ambassador Nadolny, in Geneva, of

19 May 1933.

Number 54, a statement of the American representative, Norman Davies, at

the Disarmament Conference, of 22 May 1933.

Number 55, a statement of the German Ambassador Nadolny, at the

Disarmament Conference of 27 May 1935.

Number 81, a speech by the then Minister Beneš of 2 July 1934.

Number 82, an excerpt from the speech of Marshal Pétain of 22 July 1934.

Number 83, the communiqué of the Reich Government of 26 July 1934.

Number 85, the communiqué of the Reich Government of 10 September 1934.

Number 86, a speech of Herr Von Neurath of 17 September 1934.

Number 88, excerpts from the speech of Marshal Smuts of 12 November

1934.

Number 119, a statement of the British Minister in the House of Commons

of 20 July 1936.

Those are the documents which I had not yet named, but which are already

contained in my document books. Mr. President, may I take this

opportunity to submit the following application, namely: The Court...

THE PRESIDENT: Those documents have all been translated, have they not,

Dr. Lüdinghausen?

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Yes, they are all included, in translation, in the

document books which have been submitted.

Mr. President, may I now make an application to the Court? It is to the

effect that the Court should permit me to call again the Defendant Von

Neurath to the witness stand, for the following reason. As may be

recalled, in the course of cross-examination Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe

presented Document 3859-PS to the defendant, which document was a

photostatic copy of a letter from the defendant, dated 31 August 1940,

to the Chief of the Reich Chancellery, Lammers, with two enclosures. In

this letter the defendant asked Lammers to submit the two enclosures to

Hitler and to arrange, if possible, a personal conference or an

interview on the question of alleged Germanization mentioned therein.

The two enclosures of this letter to Lammers are reports and suggestions

on the future form of the Protectorate and concern the assimilation or

possible Germanization of the Czech people.

The Court will recall that the presentation of this rather extensive

document—it has 30 or 40 pages in this photostatic form if not

more—surprised the defendant, and at that moment he could not recall

the matter clearly enough to give positive and exhaustive information

about these documents immediately. Nevertheless, in cross-examination,

after a very brief look at these reports, he expressed doubts as to

whether these reports, as presented here in photostatic form, were

actually identical with the reports which were enclosed, according to

his instructions, in the letter to Lammers to be submitted to Hitler. A

careful examination of these photostatic copies was not possible in the

course of cross-examination; and, of course, I myself, since I did not

know the documents, was not able to comment upon them. Since Herr Von

Neurath was obviously overtired and exhausted after the

cross-examination it was not possible for me to examine the question and

discuss it with him on the same day; that was possible only on the

following day.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Von Lüdinghausen, the defendant may be recalled

for the purpose of being questioned about these two documents; but, of

course, it is an exceptional license which is allowed on this occasion,

because the object of re-examination is to enable counsel to elucidate

such matters as this.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: You may call him.

[_The Defendant Von Neurath resumed the stand._]

You are still under oath, of course.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Herr Von Neurath, do you recall the reason for

your letter to Dr. Lammers of 31 August 1940 and your request for him to

arrange a conference, an interview with Hitler?

VON NEURATH: Yes. As I said during my examination, in the course of the

summer of 1940 I learned that various Reich and Party agencies, among

others particularly the Gauleiter of the neighboring Gaue and Himmler,

had sent more or less radical reports and suggestions to Hitler. I knew

that Himmler, particularly, made quite extreme suggestions regarding a

partition of the Protectorate area and complete annihilation of the

Czech folkdom and people. These agencies were urging Hitler to put these

plans into effect as quickly as possible.

Since, as I have already emphasized, I was opposed to such plans and, on

the contrary, wanted to preserve the Czech people and folkdom and

protect them against the intentions of Himmler and his companions to

destroy them, I decided to make an attempt to induce Hitler not to carry

out any Germanization plans but to forbid them and to send a categorical

order to this effect to the Party and its agencies.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Do you recall how these two reports came about,

which were to be included in your letter to Lammers?

VON NEURATH: As far as I can recall, things developed as follows: Either

I myself dictated a report or one of my officials drew it up according

to my instructions; I believe the latter was the case. But I recall

definitely that this report was much briefer than the one submitted here

in photostatic copy. I remember, furthermore, that the conclusions drawn

in it were similar but much sharper and that the whole problem had to be

considered very carefully.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Now, tell us how and why the second report of

Frank came to be made.

VON NEURATH: From the various discussions which I had with Frank, I knew

that he, too, was opposed to this partition of the Protectorate

territory and the evacuation of the Czech population as proposed by

Himmler and that he shared my opinions, at least to that extent.

Therefore I considered it expedient, since Hitler had assigned Frank to

me as State Secretary because he knew the Czech country and people very

well, to point out to Hitler that this man, too, was opposed to

Himmler’s plans and advised Hitler against accepting them.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: But for what reason did you especially emphasize

in your letter to Lammers that you shared the opinions expressed in

Frank’s report?

VON NEURATH: I considered it right to do this because Frank was a member

of the SS and a subordinate and confidant of Himmler. On the other hand,

I knew already at that time that Hitler was prejudiced against me,

because of my attitude toward the Czech people, which he considered much

too mild and lenient; and I was, therefore, convinced that together with

Frank I would be more likely to be successful in influencing Hitler to

my way of thinking than if I went to him alone. That was the reason why

I suggested that Frank should participate in the report. For the same

reason I did not write directly to Hitler, as I did usually, but to

Lammers. According to previous experience, I had to assume that if I had

written directly to Hitler, who on top of it was not in Berlin at the

time, he would either not read the report at all or would refer it to

Himmler.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: How was this letter to Lammers and its enclosures

handled in your office?

VON NEURATH: I had the draft of the report of Frank submitted to me.

Then I dictated my letter to Lammers, and I sent it with my report and

Frank’s draft back to Frank’s office for a final review of the Frank

report and for the dispatch of the letter to Lammers together with both

versions. I did not see the letter to Lammers and the two reports again

before they were sent out nor did I see them, by the way, in Berlin at

the conference with Hitler.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: The last question. How did you reach the

conviction that the photostatic copies, submitted here, of the two

reports could not be identical with the reports which were enclosed in

the letter to Lammers, according to your instructions?

VON NEURATH: As for the first report which I prepared, I have already

stated that according to my recollection it was much shorter than the

one submitted here in photostatic copy. Furthermore, this photostatic

copy does not bear my signature, not even my initials. But it is out of

the question that the final copy of this report, which was enclosed at

my office in the letter to Lammers, would not have been signed or at

least initialed by me; and the certificate of correctness, which,

remarkably enough, is contained in this report and which was prepared by

an SS Obersturmbannführer, is not signed. The photostatic copy which is

said to have been enclosed in the letter to Lammers does not even bear

my initials. The most noticeable thing, however, is the certificate of

correctness on the photostatic copy. This can have a meaning only if the

document enclosed in the letter to Lammers, in spite of not bearing my

signature, was enclosed in the letter nevertheless. But since the final

copy which my office sent to State Secretary Frank’s office with the

letter to Lammers was certainly signed by me, this certificate proves

that it was not the report signed by me which was enclosed in the letter

sent to Lammers but another one drafted by Frank or by officials in his

office. As for Frank’s own report, the text of the photostatic copy

here, to my recollection, is not identical with the text of the report

which I approved and which I then sent on together with my report to

Lammers...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Von Lüdinghausen, we have heard the explanation more

than once, I think, that the enclosure which was in the letter was not

the same as the one which he drew up. It does not get any more

convincing by getting told over again.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I only wanted to express it again. But if the

Tribunal believes that that explanation has been made previously, I may

dispense with it.

VON NEURATH: Mr. President, may I be permitted to make another statement

as to how I imagine—of course, I can only imagine—these things took

place? I am firmly convinced that if the two photostatic copies

submitted here were actually enclosed in the letter to Lammers, they

were prepared in Frank’s office, and enclosed without my knowledge.

Another possibility would be, of course, that Czech...

THE PRESIDENT: We are quite as able to imagine possibilities as you are.

The fact is that the letter was signed in his name, was it not? The

letter itself was signed?

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: And he refers expressly to the enclosure?

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well; we understand it.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Yes. I wanted it to be made clear to the Court.

For, as I have said, I could not thoroughly examine the remarkable

characteristics of these two reports, the outer form and the text at the

moment of cross-examination. I have no further questions, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Then the defendant can return to the dock.

Do you want to ask any questions, Sir David?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I do not think so. If the Court would

just allow me, I should like to look at the document while the Court is

recessed and see whether there is any point that I might like to

question on.

THE PRESIDENT: We will recess now.

[_A recess was taken._]

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have considered the matter; and I think it is

really in the stage of argument and not cross-examination; but, My Lord,

I should like Your Lordship just to observe, as the matter has been

raised, that there is a certificate, given by Captain Hochwald on behalf

of General Ecer, which states that the exhibit which was put in is a

photostat taken from the original of a document found in the archives of

the Reich Protector’s office in Prague, so that that theory appears,

from the certificate and the exhibit, that the copy-letter to Dr.

Lammers and the two memoranda were preserved and found in the office of

the Reich Protector. I do not want to say anything further in the

matter.

THE PRESIDENT: Let the defendant come back to the witness box. Oh—no he

need not come back. Dr. Bergold. Dr. Bergold?

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Mr. President, since Dr. Bergold is absent

at present, I should like to ask whether I may submit the three

documents in my case which are still outstanding.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Dr. Kranzbühler.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I am offering as Exhibit Dönitz-100, the

affidavit subscribed by the chief of the American Navy, Admiral Nimitz,

as to American U-boat war against the Japanese Navy. The Tribunal

already knows what I wish to prove with this. I need not read anything

now because in the final presentation of my argument I shall have to

come back to this point.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to have the document read, Dr.

Kranzbühler.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I have the original text in English, Mr.

President, and I shall therefore have to read in English:

“At the request of the International Military Tribunal, the

following interrogatories were on this date, 11 May 1940, put to

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz...”

THE PRESIDENT: You must have given the wrong date—1946, is it not?

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: 11 May 1946.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go on.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: “...put to Fleet Admiral Chester W.

Nimitz, U.S. Navy, by Lieutenant Commander Joseph L. Broderick,

United States Naval Reserve, of the International Law Section,

Office of the Judge Advocate General, Navy Department,

Washington, D.C., who recorded verbatim the testimony of the

witness. Admiral Nimitz was duly sworn by Lieutenant Commander

Broderick and interrogated as follows:

“Q: ‘What is your name, rank, and present station?’

“A: ‘Chester W. Nimitz, Fleet Admiral, United States Navy, Chief

of Naval Operations of the United States Navy.’

“1. Q: ‘What positions in the U.S. Navy did you hold from

December 1941 until May 1945?’

“A: ‘Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet.’

“2. Q: ‘Did the U.S.A. in her sea warfare against Japan announce

certain waters to be areas of operation, blockade, danger,

restriction, warning, or the like?’

“A: ‘Yes. For the purpose of command of operations against Japan

the Pacific Ocean areas were declared a theater of operations.’

“3. Q: ‘If yes, was it customary in such areas for submarines to

attack merchantmen without warning, with the exception of her

own and those of her Allies?’

“A: ‘Yes, with the exception of hospital ships and other vessels

under “safe conduct” voyages for humanitarian purposes.’

“4. Q: ‘Were you under orders to do so?’

“A: ‘The Chief of Naval Operations on 7 December 1941 ordered

unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan.’

“5. Q: ‘Was it customary for the submarines to attack Japanese

merchantmen without warning—outside of announced operation or

similar areas since the outbreak of the war?’

“A: ‘The reply to this interrogatory involves matters outside

the limits of my command during the war; therefore I make no

reply thereto.’

“6. Q: ‘Were you under orders to do so?’

“A: ‘The reply to this interrogatory involves matters outside

the limits of my command during the war; therefore I make no

reply thereto.’

“7. Q: ‘If the practice of attacking without warning did not

exist since the outbreak of the war, did it exist from a later

date on? From what date on?’

“A: ‘The practice existed from 7 December 1941 in the declared

zone of operations.’

“8. Q: ‘Did this practice correspond to issued orders?’

“A: ‘Yes.’

“9. Q: ‘Did it become known to the U.S. naval authorities that

Japanese merchantmen were under orders to report any sighted

U.S. submarine to the Japanese Armed Forces by radio? If yes,

when did it become known?’

“A: ‘During the course of the war, it became known to the U.S.

naval authorities that Japanese merchantmen in fact reported by

radio to Japanese Armed Forces any information regarding

sighting of U.S. submarines.’

“10. Q: ‘Did the U.S. submarines thereupon receive the order to

attack without warning Japanese merchantmen, if this order did

not exist already before? If yes, when?’

“A: ‘The order existed from 7 December 1941.’

“11. Q: ‘Did it become known to the U.S. naval authorities that

the Japanese merchantmen were under orders to attack any U.S.

submarine in any way suitable according to the situation; for

instance, by ramming, gunfire, or by depth charges? If yes, when

did it become known?’

“A: ‘Japanese merchantmen were usually armed and always attacked

by any available means when feasible.’

“12. Q: ‘Did the U.S. submarines thereupon receive the order of

attacking without warning Japanese merchantmen, if this order

did not already exist before. If yes, when?’

“A: ‘The order existed from 7 December 1941.’

“13. Q: ‘Were, by order or on general principles, the U.S.

submarines prohibited from carrying out rescue measures toward

passengers and crews of ships sunk without warning in those

cases where by doing so the safety of their own boat was

endangered?’

“A: ‘On general principles, the U.S. submarines did not rescue

enemy survivors if undue additional hazard to the submarine

resulted or the submarine would thereby be prevented from

accomplishing its further mission. U.S. submarines were limited

in rescue measures by small passenger-carrying facilities

combined with the known desperate and suicidal character of the

enemy. Therefore, it was unsafe to pick up many survivors.

Frequently survivors were given rubber boats and/or provisions.

Almost invariably survivors did not come aboard the submarine

voluntarily, and it was necessary to take them prisoner by

force.’

“14. Q: ‘If such an order or principle did not exist, did the

U.S. submarine actually carry out rescue measures in the

above-mentioned cases?’

“A: ‘In numerous cases enemy survivors were rescued by U.S.

submarines.’

“15. Q: ‘In answering the above question, does the expression

“merchantmen” mean any other kind of ships than those which were

not warships?’

“A: ‘No. By “merchantmen” I mean all types of ships which were

not combatant ships. Used in this sense, it includes fishing

boats, et cetera.’

“16. Q: ‘If yes, what kind of ships?’

“A: ‘The last answer covers this question.’

“17. Q: ‘Has any order of the U.S. naval authorities mentioned

in the above questionnaire concerning the tactics of U.S.

submarines toward Japanese merchantmen been based on the grounds

of reprisal? If yes, what orders?’

“A: ‘The unrestricted submarine and air warfare ordered on 7

December 1941 resulted from the recognition of Japanese tactics

revealed on that date. No further orders to U.S. submarines

concerning tactics toward Japanese merchantmen throughout the

war were based on reprisal, although specific instances of

Japanese submarines committing atrocities toward U.S. merchant

marine survivors became known and would have justified such a

course.’

“18. Q: ‘Has this order or have these orders of the Japanese

Government been announced as reprisals?’

“A: ‘The question is not clear. Therefore I make no reply

thereto.’

“19. Q: ‘On the basis of what Japanese tactics was reprisal

considered justified?’

“A: ‘The unrestricted submarine and air warfare ordered by the

Chief of Naval Operations on 7 December 1941 was justified by

the Japanese attacks on that date on U.S. bases and on both

armed and unarmed ships and nationals without warning or

declaration of war.’

“The above record of testimony has been examined by me on this

date and is in all respects accurate and

true.”—signed—“Chester W. Nimitz, Fleet Admiral, U.S. Navy.”

This document bears the number Dönitz-100.

As my next document I submit an expert opinion given by the former naval

judge, Jäckel, on the jurisdiction of the naval courts for the

protection of the native population against encroachments by marines.

This document has been admitted by the Tribunal and is available in

translation and therefore I do not need to read it.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you give us the number?

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Dönitz-49, Mr. President.

Then, Mr. President, some weeks back I made application to admit

extracts from the records of a war crimes court at Oslo. These had been

used by the Prosecution on the occasion of the cross-examination of

Grossadmiral Dönitz. At that time they were not numbered. From these

records I selected some extracts which prove that torpedo boat Number

345, whose crew were shot by reason of the Commando Order, was a boat

which was charged with sabotage acts. Due to this fact the High Command

of the Navy and also Admiral Dönitz were not informed about the

treatment meted out to these prisoners, and this question was settled

directly by means of discussions between Gauleiter Terboven and the

Führer’s headquarters. I ask that the High Tribunal admit this document

as evidence, since this document was used by the Prosecution. It would

receive the Number Dönitz-107.

COLONEL H. J. PHILLIMORE (Junior Counsel for the United Kingdom): My

Lord, I do not know if the Tribunal has before it the answer which the

Prosecution have put into this application.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we have just looked at it now.

COL. PHILLIMORE: Broadly speaking, it comes to this, that we are quite

prepared to put in the whole proceedings, but we should object to

extracts being put in; that is, amongst the affidavits and the evidence

of some of the witnesses, material to support the points for which

counsel for Defendant Dönitz contends. There is, on the other hand, a

body of evidence the other way on all those points. That is why, My

Lord...

THE PRESIDENT: Would it not save translation if you put in the passages

in the document upon which you rely?

COL. PHILLIMORE: If that would be more convenient, My Lord, we can do

that.

THE PRESIDENT: I do not know how long the document is. It may be very

long indeed.

COL. PHILLIMORE: The whole proceedings are very long. The trial lasted

for 4 days.

THE PRESIDENT: Then it would be appropriate that you should pick out the

parts on which you rely and Dr. Kranzbühler can put in...

COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, it is put in the answer that the document

against this defendant, which was proved in the defendant’s case, was an

affidavit by the Judge Advocate, who set out the effect of the evidence

accepted by the court.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal follows that, but it thinks that it is

desirable that you should put in the passages upon which you as well as

the defense counsel rely.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: May I submit this document, Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT: What is the number again, please?

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Number Dönitz-107, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: And it contains extracts from these proceedings, does it?

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Yes, extracts.

THE PRESIDENT: The Prosecution will put in their extracts and we will

consider them both.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Mr. President, then I have another question

dealing with the documents of the case which we have just dealt with,

the case of Katyn.

The witness, Professor Markov, mentioned the expert opinion given by the

Italian expert, Professor Palmieri, which is in the German _White Book_.

I should also like to submit this opinion as evidence, for the reason

that there is no mention of insects being found on the corpses as

Professor Markov asserted, but rather, “larvae.” To me the difference

appears to be that insects fly about during the summer whereas larvae

conceal themselves during the winter months, Mr. President, may I submit

this document?

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I should like to make just one

factual remark. In Professor Palmieri’s report it was indicated that the

“larvae” were discovered in the throats of the corpses. I cannot imagine

that “insects” were ever found in the throat of a corpse. That is why I

do not think that the presentation of the document by defendant’s

counsel serves a purpose.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kranzbühler, you are specifying a particular document

referred to in the _White Book_, is that right?

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Yes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: And you mean the whole of the document?

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: That document is about one page, Mr.

President.

THE PRESIDENT: Then you may put it in, subject to its being translated.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Very well, Mr. President.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, we are talking about a document

which is an account on the dissection of a corpse performed by Professor

Palmieri. It is no report but merely an account of an autopsy carried

out by Professor Palmieri himself.

THE PRESIDENT: Is it referred to in the conclusions or not?

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: It is put in the general record to the same

extent as the record of Professor Markov. It is the findings on the

autopsy which Professor Palmieri performed.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Mr. President, I have still another document

in the case of Katyn, which I received from Polish sources just a few

days ago. This is a document which was written in English and appeared

in London in 1946. The title is, _Report on the Massacre of Polish

Officers in the Katyn Wood_. In this document Polish sources are used,

and I should like to offer this document to the Tribunal as evidence.

However, before I present certain lines of evidence, I would like to ask

that the High Tribunal examine this document, for there may be doubts

whether it can be used as evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kranzbühler, this document is printed for private

circulation only. It has no printer’s name on it, and it is entirely

anonymous.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Yes, Mr. President, these were the doubts

which I entertained. I submitted this document as I assumed that in view

of the importance of this case, the Tribunal would nevertheless want to

take official notice of the contents.

THE PRESIDENT: No, the Tribunal thinks it would be improper to look at a

document of this nature.

GEN. RUDENKO: Mr. President, I should just like to make one remark, as

in fact the Tribunal has already indicated its decision. The statement

of the defendant’s counsel that this document was received from the

Polish Delegation astounds me to say the least. I should like to know

from what Polish Delegation he received this document, because the

Polish Delegation represented here could not possibly produce such a

Fascist propaganda document as this.

THE PRESIDENT: I think General Rudenko misunderstood what Dr.

Kranzbühler said.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, four interrogatories were granted to me on

behalf of the Defendant Funk. When I presented my case, I could not yet

submit these affidavits because they had not been translated. In the

meantime, I have received these translations; and they have been

submitted to the Tribunal. I ask to be permitted to present them briefly

to the Tribunal at this point.

One of them, in Document Book Walter Funk, Supplement Number 2, will be

numbered Exhibit Number Funk-16. This is the very comprehensive

interrogation of the witness Landfried who held the position of state

secretary in the Ministry of the Defendant Funk. This witness—I do not

believe I need to read this record in detail—in answer to the first

question, deals with the economic policy of the Defendant Funk in the

occupied countries. He describes it in exactly the same way as it was

presented by Funk. In answer to the second question, he deals similarly

with the directions given by the Defendant Funk to the military

commanders and to the Reich Commissioners of the occupied countries.

Under Question 4, the witness deals with the question of the plundering

of the occupied territories. He confirms the fact that the Defendant

Funk always opposed such plundering, that he fought the black markets,

that he opposed devaluation of the currency, that he tried to maintain

currency in the occupied territory on the original level.

In reply to Question 5, the witness describes in detail how the

Defendant Funk tried to prevent financial overburdening of the occupied

countries, especially to lower the costs of occupation as far as

possible.

Then in the other questions, in Part 2, particularly in reply to

Question 11, the witness discusses the activities of the Defendant Funk

in the Ministry of Economics, with regard to German preparations in the

event of a war.

Then, in reply to Question 12, the witness examines the position of the

Plenipotentiary General for Economy and he concludes that in practice it

was the position of a figurehead only. However, I do not wish to read

these detailed statements and take up too much of the time of the

Tribunal, for in the main these are only repetitions of statements that

have already been made.

In the last two questions, Numbers 14 and 15, the witness Landfried,

who, as I have already said, was for years the defendant’s deputy,

describes the defendant’s attitude toward the policy of terror and his

fundamental attitude in regard to the use of foreign workers and similar

matters. I ask that the Tribunal take judicial notice of this very

detailed testimony and that these brief statements will suffice.

The next interrogatory comes from the witness Emil Puhl. This is the

same witness who was interrogated in this courtroom about other

questions, namely the question of gold teeth, _et cetera_. This is the

interrogatory and the answers of the witness Emil Puhl, Document Book

Funk, Supplement Number 3, Exhibit Funk-17.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, has this interrogatory been granted?

DR. SAUTER: Yes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: He gave his evidence. We do not generally allow

interrogatories to witnesses who have given their evidence.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the matter was like this: As far back as

December I had applied for this interrogatory and repeatedly asked for

it, but it did not arrive. And only after 2 days of cross-examining, was

this witness Emil Puhl suddenly questioned by the Prosecution on

entirely different subjects, that is the matter of gold deposits made by

the SS, rather of gold teeth. This interrogation by the Prosecution did

not refer to the interrogatory, which I believe was granted by you in

February.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, what I mean is this: Supposing the Tribunal

is asked to grant an interrogatory and it grants the interrogatory, and

then the witness is subsequently called to give evidence. When he is

called to give evidence, he ought to be questioned upon all the matters

which are relevant to the Trial. The Tribunal does not want to have to

read his evidence in one place and then his interrogatory in some other

place.

Is there any objection, Mr. Dodd, to accepting it in this case?

MR. DODD: No, I have no objection, Mr. President. That is the situation.

It was granted before Puhl was called. He was called here for

cross-examination and I do not recall offhand whether or not counsel

inquired concerning these matters that are contained therein. We have no

objections. It may be some annoyance to the Tribunal, which we regret.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the witness Puhl, during his examination in

the French camp, also had the questions of the cross-examination

submitted to him which the Prosecution asked for and they were answered

by him. Thus he was interrogated not only about the points which I

raised, but also about the questions put in the cross-examination by the

Prosecution. Therefore, I take the liberty of submitting this document,

which is an interrogatory of Emil Puhl, Document Book Number 3,

Supplement Number 3, and to which is assigned Exhibit Number Funk-17.

This witness Puhl, who was the vice president of the Reichsbank, in this

interrogatory deals solely with matters entirely different from the

subjects dealt with here in his examination, namely, the preparations

which the Reichsbank President, Dr. Funk, made in the event of war; that

is Question Number 1, concerning the handling of the clearing debts, and

Question Number 2, about the higher valuation of the Danish currency...

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks you need not read the interrogatory

but the Tribunal will allow it to go in in this case.

DR. SAUTER: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted only to sketch the

contents of this testimony briefly.

Then I submit additional testimony, given by a witness, which has been

granted by the Tribunal. It is the testimony given by the witness Heinz

Kallus, to be found in Document Book Walter Funk, Supplement 4, and is

assigned Exhibit Number Funk-18. I also submit this testimony to the

General Secretary and I should like to ask, in order to save time, that

the Tribunal take judicial notice of its contents.

As my fourth and last document there is an affidavit subscribed by Mr.

Messersmith, a supplement to a previous statement which has already been

submitted to the Tribunal. This is very brief, in fact it is but one

sentence and it may be found in the Document Book Walter Funk,

Supplement Number 5, with Exhibit Number Funk-19. I also submit this

document. And now I have arrived at the conclusion of my report, Mr.

President. Thank you very much.

DR. THOMA: Mr. President, I should like to submit to the Tribunal the

testimony of the witness Dr. Beil. Up to now I had received this

testimony only in English. I have fetched it again from the Translation

Division so that I could submit it as Exhibit Number Rosenberg-50. In

this connection I have another request. This interrogatory contains

important questions dealing with the attitude adopted by the East

Ministry in the matter of allocation of labor and it is of such

importance that I ask the permission of the Tribunal to have it read.

Since I am not entirely conversant with the English language, I should

like to ask to have an interpreter read this interrogatory.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, has this document been offered in evidence

before: It was granted by the Tribunal, was it not, this interrogatory?

DR. THOMA: Yes, it has already been granted by the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Is it necessary to read it? Can you not submit it in

evidence and the Tribunal will consider it?

DR. THOMA: I leave that, of course, to the Tribunal to decide. I wanted

to point out only that this is very important and decisive testimony in

regard to the question of manpower allocation in the East Ministry.

However, I shall leave that to the judgment of the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Can you not summarize it?

DR. THOMA: Mr. President, I have received only an English translation,

and I do not wish to attempt to do anything with it. But I believe there

are only 2 pages—the interpreter will read that in no time at all.

THE PRESIDENT: Let the interpreter read it then.

INTERPRETER: Exhibit Number Rosenberg-50:

“Copy. Completed interrogatory of Ministerialrat Dr. Beil, on

behalf of Rosenberg.

“The witness, having been duly sworn, states:

“Q: ‘Were you the permanent official (Sachbearbeiter) in the

East Ministry (Ost Ministerium) in charge of the questions of

labor and social policy?’

“A: ‘Yes, I was one of 10 permanent officials; we originally

started with 52, but as the East Front receded the staff was

finally reduced to 10. I was in charge of the administration

side of the labor and social policy. The head of the department

was Landesbauernführer Peukert.’

“Q: ‘Was the East Ministry in favor of voluntary recruiting of

workers in the East?’

“A: ‘Yes, of voluntary recruiting only, my instructions being

that it should only be carried out on this basis.’

“Q: ‘Are any results known?’

“A: ‘Yes, but the results were not as great as anticipated, only

some 300,000 to 400,000 volunteered and most of these were from

the Ukraine, Lithuania, and Estonia.’

“Q: ‘Were there any negotiations about decreasing the quotas

ordered by the Plenipotentiary General for Allocation of Labor

(GBA)?’

“A: ‘Yes, negotiations for decreasing the quotas took place but

broke down owing to Sauckel demanding something like a million

workers to be transferred to the interior.’

“Q: ‘Who was responsible for the care and control of the East

Workers (Ostarbeiter) in the Reich?’

“A: ‘The German Labor Front (Arbeitsfront) and the Reich Food

Estate (Reichsnährstand) were responsible for the care of the

East Workers, the former for workers in munitions and heavy

industry and the latter for agricultural workers.’

“Q: ‘What was the point of view of the Department ASO...’”

DR. THOMA: ASO, if I may interrupt, is the Labor, Social, and Political

Department of the East Ministry.