dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
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 KRANZBUHLER: 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 KRANZBUHLER: 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. Kranzbuhler, this document is printed for private circulation only. It has no printer's name on it, and it is entirely anonymous.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: 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. Kranzbuhler 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.
DR. SAUTER: 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 off-hand 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-l9. 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. Bell. 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. Bell, 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 LandesbauernFuehrer 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 (Reichsnahrstand) 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.
INTERPRETER: [continuing.] "Q: 'What was the point of view of the Department ASO concerning the treatment of the East Workers in the Reich?' "A: 'The view of my Department ASO was that the voluntary recruiting of workers on a free movement basis, thus taking them out of the barbed-wire-enclosed factories, would be the best method of treatment; we also advocated the removal of the arm badges, worn originally on the arm and later over the left breast, which carried the word "East" so as to distinguish them from workers from the West, who never at any time wore badges. The wording being later changed to "Greater Russia," "White Russia," and "Ukraine," the people from the Baltic States did not wear the arm badge. Certain Russians, small groups of Cossacks, Tartars, and one or two others were not compelled to wear the arm band, as they were anti-Bolshevistic and pro-German; and a certain proportion of these were eventually called up into the German Army. Some 7,000 youths of Ruthenia were called up by ASO and these were apprenticed at Junkers Works.' "Q: 'Is the Central Office (Zentralstelle) for the eastern people (Ostvolker) at the East Ministry known to you? How was this organized?' "A: 'Yes, it was considered to be a consulate for the East; members of the staff were partly Germans and partly local employees from the East, who were considered suitable for such employment Some of the foreign employees were placed at the disposal of the country offices to look after the interests of their fellow countrymen working in the countries. At the Central Office were instituted offices for each of the eastern states, each office being controlled by a German, some of whom had originally come from these states.
INTERPRETER: There was also a welfare branch which was run by persons from these eastern states, to look after the comfort, et cetera, of their individual countrymen; there was also a religious branch which was run by clergy from these countries, but this branch was not very successful as there was an insufficiency of priests.' l "Q: 'Now, with the help of the DAF, were the complaints followed up?' "A: 'The interests of foreign workers were always looked after; missions were sent to the various concentrations of East Workers to find out how they were progressing and what kind of treatment they were receiving. These missions dealt with complaints submitted to them on their visits, but the Central Of lice had to deal also with written complaints received through the post.' "Q: 'Is a printed circular to the authorities in the country known to you, that ordered a just treatment? Details? What was the story about the families who were evacuated by the Army Group Center and about the children 10-14 years old?' "A: 'Yes, there was a circular issued, dealing with this question, and it gave details at great length for the just treatment of the East Workers. This circular was issued at the request of the Ministry of the East, through Sauckel. A second circular was issued by Rosenberg dealing with the just treatment of workers from the East only. I have no knowledge of this story, as this was dealt with entirely by the Army Group Center.' "Q: 'Does the witness know the pamphlet issued by the East Ministry to the managers of enterprises concerning the nations of eastern Europe and the attitude towards them?' "
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, that affidavit does not seem to be short at all. It all seems to be cumulative. Every word of it is what we have heard before and heard not only once, but over and over again.
INTERPRETER: Dr. Thoma has just said that the last sentence is coming up.
DR. THOMA: There are two more short sentences.
INTERPRETER: "A: 'There were two pamphlets issued; one issued by Sauckel, and the other issued in conjunction with DAF and Sauckel and the Ministry for the East.' 'Q: 'Has he one handy?' "A: 'I have not got a copy of this pamphlet.' "(Signed) Bell."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, the Tribunal rely on counsel, you know; and when you tell us that this is an important affidavit, we rely on what you tell us. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the reading of the affidavit was an absolute waste of the Tribunal's time.
DR. THOMA: I should like to put another request to the Tribunal. I have asked that I be granted an interrogatory for the Reichshauptstellenleiter Dr. Oeppert, of the office of the Delegate of the Fuehrer for the supervision of the entire ideological and mental relation of the NSDAP under Rosenberg's office. This affidavit has not been granted to me, but I already have it on hand.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the Prosecution seen it?
DR. THOMA: No, Mr. President, I do not think so. I submitted an application to the General Secretary. Whether this request has already been transmitted to the Prosecution, I do not know.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the only application that we have got, as far as I can see, is an interrogatory to Dr. Koppen in lieu of Dr. Stellbrecht. Is that the one that you are speaking about now?
DR. THOMA: No. Mr. President, I was granted permission to interrogate Dr. Koppen instead of Dr. Stellbrecht, and the interrogatory has already been sent off. This, however, is a new application regarding Dr. Oeppert and has not yet been decided upon.
THE PRESIDENT: You had better submit it to the Prosecution and see-whether they have any comment to make on it, and we can take it up tomorrow.
DR. THOMA: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In the case of Papen there are six interrogatories which have not been disposed of. Three of them have been returned in the last few days and are in the stage of being translated. I asked, when I received my last interrogatory, to be allowed to submit all six at one time to the Tribunal. Then, without my taking any steps to get it, I received an affidavit 3 days ago from a foreign journalist, Rademacher von Unna, from Milan, Italy. This affidavit is being translated at present. I submitted it to the British prosecutor, and he does not object. I ask to be allowed to submit this affidavit later with the remainder of my documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly you may submit it. We shall then pass an opinion upon it as to its admissibility.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Thank you, Mr. President.
DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendants Frank and Hess): Mr. President, I ask permission to submit the answers to the interrogatories from the witnesses which have not yet been submitted. As Exhibit Frank-l9 I submit the answers to the interrogatory given by the witness Dr. Ernst Bopple. Bopple was State Secretary in the Government General, and he has answered 41 questions in all. As Number Frank-20, I submit the answers to an interrogatory given by the witness Max Meidinger. Meidinger was chief of the chancellery of the Government General. He has answered 43 questions. This interrogatory, as well as the first interrogatory by Bopple, as far as I could make out, has not been translated yet, although I handed these interrogatories in to be translated about 10 days ago. But attached to the interrogatory there is an English translation which was made during the interrogation. As Number Frank-21 I submit the answers given by the witness Gassner, who answered 49 questions. Gassner was press chief in the Government General. Number Frank-22 will be the interrogatory deposed by the witness Dr. Stepp, who in the end was president of the Court of Appeals (Oberlandesgericht). He deals mainly with the efforts made by the Defendant Frank in the years 1933 and 1934, in his capacity as Bavarian Minister of Justice, for the dissolution of the concentration camp at Dachau. I should also like to take this opportunity, Mr. President, of pointing out an error of translation which does not refer to the documents of Frank but to a document which was submitted on behalf of the Defendant Hess. Although it was not used by the Prosecution with regard to the personal responsibility of Rudolf Hess, it is found in the document book, and the document concerned is Exhibit USA-696, Document 062-PS. That is a directive of 13 March 1940, the same directive which was mentioned last Saturday in the case of the Defendant Bormann, on which occasion the President himself read Figure 4 of this directive, which was submitted as an appendix to this directive of 13 March.
DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendants Frank and Hess): There is a very serious error in translation, which completely distorts the sense of the directive and which, I must say, can have very dangerous consequences. Under Figure 4 the words "unschadlich gemacht" (made harmless) were translated as "liquidated."
THE PRESIDENT: If there is an error in the translation, you had better apply to the General Secretary; and he will have the matter gone into by the Translation Division. ~
DR. SEIDL: Yes, Mr. President, but the matter does not seem to be as simple as that. The translator obviously had the feeling himself that his translation was not reproducing the sense quite accurately, because in parentheses he added "unschadlich gemacht." In my opinion this sentence must be translated as follows: "Likewise, enemy parachutists are immediately to be arrested or made harmless." The sense was obviously that the parachutists...
THE PRESIDENT: I dare say, Dr. Seidl, but we do not have the document before us and we do not all of us understand the German language. Therefore, it had better be referred to the Translation Division. It is no good referring it to us.
DR. SEIDL: Then I shall put a written application to the General Secretary, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Have the Prosecution any objection to these interrogatories which Dr. Seidl has been dealing with? Have the Prosecution had the opportunity of putting cross-interrogatories if they wanted to do so?
COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, I am told that we think so, with the possible exception of the last one. Perhaps I could look into it overnight.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
COL. PHILLIMORE: I will look into that point and let the Tribunal know. My Lord, the Prosecution have a few documents to put in. I have eight, and I think my friend Mr. Dodd has three. I could do it very quickly, but it might be more convenient to do it tomorrow morning.
THE PRESIDENT: We will go into all these documents tomorrow morning. There will be some others on behalf of some of the other defendants. We will also hear the witnesses Kempka and Walkenhorst, I believe it is, whom Dr. Bergold wishes to call. The Tribunal desires Dr. Bergold to be here tomorrow morning in order to be able to examine these witnesses. The Tribunal will now adjourn. [The Tribunal adjourned until 3 July 1946 at 1000 hours.]
THE PRESIDENT: Has Dr. Bergold asked any of the defendants' counsel to represent him? [There was no response.] Has the Marshal been able to get in touch with Dr. Bergold?
MARSHAL: No, Sir.
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, Dr. Bergold was advised yesterday that his presence would be required in the courtroom today. As far as I have heard-and I have only heard this-the General Secretary also got in touch with him regarding this matter. I am sorry I cannot tell you any more about it. As far as I know, he did not ask anyone to represent him in Court today.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Dr. Stahmer.
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, I shall look pinto this matter immediately, to see whether he has arrived or whether I can contact him.
THE PRESIDENT: Very good; and Dr. Stahmer, I think the best course would be for the Tribunal to consider the various applications with reference to interrogatories and documents, which I think you and other counsel wish to offer in evidence, and the Tribunal will then examine these witnesses if Dr. Bergold is not here by that time. The Tribunal, of course, expect him to be here if it is possible. Perhaps you will communicate with him, and the Marshal should also communicate with Dr. Bergold.
DR. STAHMER: Yes.
MARSHAL: Yes, Sir.