dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: This system was introduced by the Hitlerites into all the countries that fell as victims of their aggression. The German criminals resorted to particularly ruthless methods when murdering hostages in Eastern Europe. In introducing the hostage-seizing system the Hitlerites violated every law and custom of warfare. However, it is difficult to speak of the murder of hostages where the Soviet Union is concerned, since the crimes committed by the Hitlerites everywhere in the temporarily occupied territories of the U.S.S.R. go beyond even this criminal practice of taking hostages. To a great extent the same remarks apply to Poland and particularly to Yugoslavia. Here the Hitlerites, under the pretext of the hostage-seizing system, were really perpetrating immeasurably greater war crimes, whose ultimate aim was the extermination of entire nations. I shall now present some brief data from documents concerning the different countries of Eastern Europe. I submit an extract from the report of the Government of the Polish Republic. The Tribunal will find the passage quoted on Page 128 of the document book, Paragraph 6. I begin the quotation: "a) One of the most disgraceful features of the Hitlerite occupation of Poland was the introduction of the hostage-seizing system. Collective responsibility, payment of collective fines, and the bartering of human life were considered to be the best methods for enslaving the Polish people. "b) Here are some typical cases of mass reprisals; they illustrate the methods employed by the German occupants. "c) In November 1939 an unknown person set fire to a barn filled with grain on the outskirts of Hove Miasto Lubavske. The barn was the property of a German. As a result of this action, a certain SS Standartenfuehrer, Sperling, received an order from the higher authorities to resort to reprisals. A number of Poles from among the most prominent citizens were arrested. Out of those, 15 were selected and publicly shot by SS soldiers.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Among the victims were the two brothers Jankovsky, one a lawyer, the other a priest, the tailor Malkovsky, the blacksmith Zemny, Major of the Army Reserve Vona, the son of an innkeeper, the publisher of a newspaper, and a priest, Bronislav Dembenovsky. "d) In October 1939 the German authorities captured a certain number of Poles in the city of Inovrozlav and imprisoned them as hostages. They were brought to the prison courtyard, where they were unmercifully flogged and shot, one by one. Altogether, 70 men were killed, including the city mayor and his deputy. Among the victims were the most prominent citizens of the town." I omit the next sentence. I quote further: "e) On 7 March 1941 the film star, Igo Sym, who considered himself as being of German nationality and who was in charge of the German theaters in Warsaw, was murdered in his own apartment. Although the murderers were never found, the Governor of Warsaw, Fischer, said that Sym was murdered by the Poles and ordered the arrest of a large number of hostages. He also closed the theaters and imposed a curfew on the Polish population. The hostages were taken in order to secure the arrest of the murderers. About 200 people were arrested, including teachers, priests, physicians, lawyers, and actors. The population of Warsaw was given 3 days to find Sym's murderers. After the expiration of the 3 days, the killers still remaining unknown, 17 hostages were executed, among them Professor Kopetz, his son, and Professor Zakrzhevsky." I conclude this quotation from the report of the Polish Government and ask the Tribunal's permission to refer to a short excerpt from the report of the Czechoslovakian Government. There is one part I would like to read into the record. Your Honors will find it on Page 141 of the document book. I begin the quotation: "Even before the beginning of the war, thousands of Czech patriots and especially Catholic and Protestant clergymen, lawyers, doctors, teachers, and so on, were arrested.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Furthermore, in every district lists were drawn up of persons who were subject to arrest as hostages at the first sign of any breach of 'public order and security.' At first these were only threats. In 1940 Karl Frank announced, in a speech to the leaders of the Movement of National Unity, that 2,000 Czech hostages, interned in concentration camps, would be shot if prominent Czech statesmen refused to sign the declaration of loyalty. Sometime after the attempt on Heydrich's life, many of these hostages were executed. "Threats of reprisals against directors of factories in case of some hitch in the work at the factory were a typical method of Nazi terrorism. Thus, in 1939 the Gestapo summoned all the directors as well as the managers of warehouses belonging to various industrial firms and informed them that they would be shot in case of a strike. On leaving they had to sign the following declaration: 'I am aware of the fact that I would be shot immediately should my factory cease working without a justifiable reason.' "In the same way, school teachers were held responsible for the loyal behavior of their pupils. Many teachers were arrested only because the pupils in their schools were caught ' writing anti-German slogans or reading forbidden books." I now interrupt the quotation from the report of the Government of the Czechoslovakian Republic, and I begin to read the section recording the killings of hostages in Yugoslavia. I shall just say a few words by way of introduction. These criminal murders of the peaceful population developed on their own particular lines in Yugoslavia. As a matter of fact, it is impossible at this point to speak of the execution of hostages, although the Hitlerites constantly make use of this term in their official documents, which will be presented to the Tribunal at a later date.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Truth to tell, under the alleged killing of hostages, the Hitlerite criminals were realizing, on an enormous scale, the regime of terroristic extermination of the peaceful citizens not only for crimes which somebody or other had committed, but also for crimes which, to Hitler's way of thinking, might be committed . I submit the document that confirms this fact. It contains excerpts from the report of the Yugoslav Government, which Your Honors will find on Page 259 in the document book in their possession, Paragraph 1. I begin the quotation: "The murder of hostages was one of those methods which were used by military authorities and the Reich Government on an incredible scale for the mass extermination of the Yugoslav population. "The Yugoslav State Commission for the investigation of War Crimes has at its disposal an innumerable quantity of concrete details and original evidence taken from the German archives. We submit only a very limited number of such details and evidence, which are, however, sufficient proof that the killing of hostages was merely an item in the common plan in the systematic Nazi crime." Further, the report of the Yugoslav Government quotes an order of the commander of the so-called Group West, General Brauner. I quote the following excerpt: "In regions captured by partisans, the seizure of hostages from all strata of the population remains in force as the only really successful means of intimidation." To confirm the vast scale of the crimes of the Hitlerites in connection with the murder of hostages, the Yugoslav Government presents to the Tribunal six documents, which I now submit to Your Honors, and I ask for them to be incorporated into the record as evidence. I submit the following documents to the Tribunal: Firstly, under Exhibit Number USSR-261 (Document Number USSR-261), a certified photostat of a poster of the commanding general and Commander-in-Chief of Serbia, dated 25 December 1942, in which he announces the shooting of 50 hostages.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Secondly, as Exhibit Number USSR-319 (Document Number USSR-319), a certified photostat of a poster of the same commanding general, dated 19 February 1943, in which he announces the shooting of 400 hostages, which was carried out in Belgrade on the same date. Thirdly, as Exhibit Number USSR-320 (Document Number USSR-320), a certified photostat of a poster of the regional Kommandantur in Pozarevatz, dated 3 April 1943, announcing the shooting of 75 hostages. Fourthly, as Exhibit Number USSR-321 (Document Number USSR-321), a certified photostat of a poster of the same regional Kommandantur of Pozarevatz, dated 16 April 1943, announcing the shooting of 30 hostages. Fifthly, a certified copy of a poster of the military commandant of Belgrade, dated 14 October 1943, in which he announces the shooting of 100 hostages. I submit this document as Exhibit Number USSR-322 (Document Number USSR-322). ~ I continue my quotation from the report of the Yugoslav Government: "Planned and systematic murder of hostages is revealed by the following testimonies, collected by the Yugoslav State Commission for the investigation of war crimes on the basis of confiscated German archives and data found in the archives. The testimonies refer to Serbia only: "Four hundred and fifty hostages were shot on 3 October 1941 in Belgrade; 200 hostages were shot on 17 October 1941, in Belgrade; 50 hostages were shot on 27 October 1941, in Belgrade; 100 hostages were shot on 3 November 1941, in Belgrade.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: "Further testimonies show the terrible increasing number of these crimes at that time: "Ten hostages shot on 12 December 1942, in Kraguevatz; 10 hostages shot on 12 December 1942, in Krusevatz; 30 hostages shot on 15 December 1942, in Brush; 50 hostages shot on 17 December 1942, in Petrovatz; 10 hostages shot on 20 December 1942, in Brush; 50 hostages shot on 25 December 1942, in Petrovatz; 10 hostages shot on 26 December 1942, in Brush; 250 hostages shot on 26 December 1942, in Petrovatz; 25 hostages shot on 27 December 1942, in Krusevatz." One really could, I think, agree with the statement of the Yugoslav Government that such figures could be cited ad infinitum.. I continue my quotation: "The shooting of hostages was, as a rule, conducted in a most barbaric fashion. The victims were mostly forced to stand one behind the other in batches, waiting their turn and witnessing the execution of the preceding batch. In this manner the batches were one after another exterminated." I shall submit further to the Tribunal, as Exhibit Number USSR-205 (Document Number USSR-205), the report of the police administration of the quisling administration of Milan Nedich. It mentions the shooting, on 11 December 1941 in Leskovatz, of 310 hostages, of whom 293 were Gypsies. I continue to quote the report of the Yugoslav Government: I5 Feb. 46 "By an examination of the site and an interrogation of the Gypsies by the regional administration investigating war crimes in Leskovatz, the methods were established by which this shooting was carried out." Before reading the excerpt, I submit to the Tribunal the document which was referred to by the Government of the Yugoslav Republic, as Exhibit Number USSR-226 (Document Number USSR-226), and request it be incorporated as evidence. In the report of the Yugoslav Government, the following lines of this document are quoted: "On 11 December 1941, from 0600 hours to 1600 hours, the Germans transported the arrested hostages in their trucks in batches of about 20 persons each. All of them had their hands bound.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: They were taken to the foot of the Mountain of Hisar. From there they were driven on foot across the mountain. . . and then made to stand in ranks near recently dug graves, were shot, and then thrown into the graves."
THE PRESIDENT: I think this will be a good time to break off. Colonel Smirnov, the Tribunal appreciates the efforts that you have made to leave out unnecessary detail and to cut down the length of your address, and it hopes that during the adjournment you will continue your efforts in that direction.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Certainly, Mr. President. [The Tribunal adjourned until 18 February 1946 at 1000 hours.]
THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make, and I make it in this order, in the form of paragraphs. Paragraph 1: The Tribunal cannot accept Paragraph 1 of the Prosecution's motion, as to the evidence of the defendants, dated 11 February 1946, but directs that, in complying with Article 24(d) of the Charter, counsel for the defendants shall confine their evidence to what is required for meeting the charges in the Indictment. The Tribunal will announce later their decision with regard to Paragraphs 2 to 5 of the Prosecution's motion. Paragraph 2: With regard to the naming of witnesses, et cetera, by the Defense under Article 24(d) of the Charter , which is referred to in Paragraph 1 of Dr. Stahmer's memorandum to the Tribunal, dated 4 February 1946, the Tribunal makes the following order: In order to avoid delay in securing the attendance of witnesses and procuring of documents, without prejudice to the defendant's right to make further application at the conclusion of the case for the Prosecution, counsel for the Defendants Goering, Hess, Ribbentrop, and Keitel shall, before 5 p.m. on Thursday, the 21st of February, file with the General Secretary written statements giving the names of the witnesses and particulars of the documents they respectively desire to call or put in evidence, with a summary of the facts to be proved thereby and an exposition of the relevance thereof. The Tribunal hereby appoints Saturday, the 23rd of February, at 1000 hours-that is to say, 10 o'clock-for the hearing of argument upon such statements in open session. Paragraph 3: The Tribunal will, in due course, issue directions as to the filing of similar statements on behalf of the other defendants. Paragraph 4: The Tribunal will announce later their decision on the other matters raised in Dr. Stahmer's memorandum. The Tribunal will now hear the defendants' counsel's application for a recess.
PROFESSOR DR. HERBERT KLAUS (Counsel for Defendant Schacht): Professor Kraus, representing defendants' counsel. The defendants' counsel are grateful for the opportunity granted by the Tribunal to state in detail the reason for their application of 4 February for an adjournment of the Trial after the conclusion of the Prosecution. This application is the result of a series of proposals with which the Defense have striven to achieve a simple, clear, and as rapid a presentation as possible of its case, Only a few points of this application call for further amplification. All the defendants are accused of participation in a conspiracy. That is apparently intended to mean that every act brought up in the course of this Trial, no matter by whom it was committed and to whom it was done, is charged against every one of these defendants, and that he can be convicted on every one of these acts. Even though the individual Defense Counsel finds certain fields with which he must concern himself particularly, there are, nevertheless, no fields at all which he can entirely ignore. Since most of the Defense Counsel are working with only one assistant and sometimes alone, it can be seen how enormous is the extent of the labor involved in the examination and discussion of the material that is daily presented by the Prosecution. The necessary discussions with the defendants use up the evening hours and the days on which there are no sessions. These discussions are, moreover, because of the security measures that have been taken, very exhausting. It is, therefore, simply beyond the strength of the individual defense lawyer, along with his attendance at the Trial and his continuous working over of the material presented at the Trial, to make those intellectual and technical preparations that can justifiably be expected in a trial of such significance as this. The material presented is not yet conclusive. The Russian Prosecution is presenting new evidence daily.
PROFESSOR DR. HERBERT KLAUS (Counsel for Defendant Schacht): In the opinion of the Defense Counsel, it would lead to an incorrect evaluation of the extent and importance of accusations which the Russian Delegation is presenting if the Defense Counsel were expected to conclude their preparations for their defense before they had even heard the conclusions of the case for the Prosecution. The Tribunal has already been informed in written application of the difficulties involved in obtaining evidence. A few examples might be cited in this respect, examples to which every member of the Defense Counsel could contribute. One member of the Defense Counsel, in November of last year, applied for a certain witness to be called who was of decisive importance in the presentation of his case. The application was approved by the Tribunal. Although this witness was a very highly placed German official, it was only in January of this year that the camp in which he was interned could be located. The witness has not, as yet, appeared in Nuremberg. Therefore, the Counsel for the Defense has, so far, no idea as to which questions this witness can testify on and what he would testify. In numerous cases the place of residence of witnesses, whose appearance at the Trial had been requested by the Tribunal in November or December of last year, could not be established. Consequently the Defense Counsel are quite unable to help in locating them in such cases where witnesses, interned in Allied prisoner-of-war camps, have had no opportunity of providing information as to their whereabouts. It has been suggested to some of the Defense Counsel to interrogate witnesses outside Germany by presenting them with questionnaires which would enable them to be interrogated at their place of residence. In no single case have answers to these questionnaires reached the respective counsel for the Defense. In the case of witnesses living inside Germany, the Defense Counsel have repeatedly been asked either to conduct the interrogation themselves or to present a written affidavit.
PROFESSOR DR. HERBERT KLAUS (Counsel for Defendant Schacht): Since the Defense Counsel are confined to Nuremberg during the sessions, they could only carry out this task during a prolonged recess. Finally, one member of the Defense had, at the beginning of November, applied for permission to submit a series of documents indispensable to his case. These documents are in the possession of one of the signatories of the Charter. They have been examined by the Prosecution and have been submitted in evidence by the Prosecution insofar as they serve to implicate the defendant in question. The Defense Counsel is still not in possession of these exonerating documents. We should like to emphasize again the purely technical difficulties that arise from the mimeographing and multiple translations . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Just one moment, Professor Kraus. You referred to a document which you said was indispensable, which was in the possession of a signatory power, examined by the Prosecution, and put in evidence in this case, and the defendants are still not in possession of it. What is the reference to that document?
DR.KRAUS: No, Mr. President; it is a collection of documents in which the incriminating parts were presented by the Prosecution; but we, the Defense Counsel, are not yet in possession of the exonerating parts of that documentation. Dr. Kranzbuhler, who, too, is affected by this case can give you more detailed information.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, there is an application, I know, by Dr. Kranzbuhler; but if it is really a part of a document, the Tribunal has ruled on several occasions that if the Prosecution puts in a certain part of a document, the whole of that document must be available to the defendant's counsel so that they can criticize and comment upon any other part of it which may throw light upon the part of the document which is put in evidence.
DR. KRAUS: Yes, Mr. President; we are dealing here not with one single document, but with a whole collection of documents and Dr. Kranzbuhler only wishes to extract from this collection the documents which would assist him in exonerating his client, after the incriminating documents have been presented by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: You may continue.
DR. KRAUS: The Defense is grateful to the Prosecution for the readiness they have expressed in assisting the Defense in technical questions. The great difficulties which the Prosecution themselves have experienced in this connection, and which have repeatedly led to discussions by the Tribunal, show, nevertheless, that an efficient solution of 'this problem calls for a suitable length of time. The Defense consider it important to assure the Tribunal of their readiness and their determination not to prolong the Trial unnecessarily. They are, however, of opinion that an inadequate a priori preparation will lead to a corresponding increase in the duration of the Defense, and that the subsequent results might not at all suffice to allow the Tribunal to give a fair verdict. The Defense Counsel think they are in agreement with the Tribunal in saying that this Trial, so important in the history of humanity, should be conducted throughout with the peace and reflection which have hitherto characterized its course. Per contra, undue importance should not be attached to the understandable impatience of those who insist on a rapid termination of the Trial. In this sense the Defense requests the Prosecution to support their application. The length of time applied for, that is, 3 weeks, cannot be considered unreasonable in view of the total length of time which the Prosecution have envisaged for the completion of their case. The granting of this length of time would, on the other hand, allow for the fact that the Defense, in the conduct of their case, find themselves both spiritually and materially in a very difficult position. Mention should be made that a number of us have subscribed to today's application, contrary to the opinion of the defendants we represent, who desire a rapid termination of these proceedings. We feel that we are accountable to none but our own consciences and our professional duties as Counsel for the Defense.
DR. KRAUS: I therefore request the Tribunal to take note that, after serious and thorough consideration, my colleagues and I, without exception, are convinced that the length of time applied for, that is, 3 weeks, is the minimum time which they consider essential for an orderly preparation of the defense.
TEE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kraus, the Tribunal would like to know, if you can answer the question, whether defendants' counsel have by this time ascertained all, or nearly all, the witnesses whom they desire to call in evidence; whether they have made up their minds, up to this stage, as to what witnesses they desire to call.
DR. KRAUS: I cannot answer this question, since that would call for a general inquiry. I should have to ask my colleagues. The cases to my knowledge vary from one lawyer to another. Some of the lawyers of the Defense are more or less ready in this respect; others are not.