dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
COL.POKROVSKY: We have at our disposal an official note signed by Lammers. His document is registered under Document Number 073-PS. We submit it to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-361-it has not yet been read into the record. The document states-you will find this excerpt on Page 191 of your document book: "1. Prisoners of war are foreigners. Influencing them is the task. . . of foreign propaganda and therefore the task of the Foreign Office." I omit a few sentences. "Excepted from this ruling are the Soviet prisoners who are placed under the control of the Reich Minister for the Occupied Territories of the East because the Geneva Convention is not valid for them and because they have a special political status." In this connection, I wish to submit to you as Exhibit Number USSR-356 (Document Number USSR-356), another German document. It consists of notes composed at the headquarters of the Foreign Counterintelligence Office on the 15 November 1941 for the "OKW Chief of Staff." I shall read into the record a few extracts, of which you will find the opening lines on Page 192 of your document book: "The Geneva Convention regarding prisoners of war is not valid between Germany and the U.S.S.R. Therefore, the only rules in force are the principles of general international law regarding the treatment of prisoners of war, which since the 18th century have so developed that war captivity represented neither revenge nor punishment, but a security measure, the sole Object of which was to prevent prisoners from further participating in the war. This principle developed in connection with the prevalent opinion that, from a military standpoint, the killing or wounding of prisoners was inadmissible. In addition, it is to the interest of each belligerent to be assured against ill treatment of its soldiers in case of their capture.
COL.POKROVSKY: Appendix I states the directives, based on different premises as can be seen at the beginning of this paragraph, concerning the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war." To save time I shall omit several sentences and shall read the end of the paragraph into the record: ". . . and, in addition, eliminated much which from past experience was considered not only as useful from a military viewpoint but as indispensable to the maintenance of discipline and high striking power. "The orders are drawn up in very general terms. But, if we bear in mind the ruling basic tendency, then the 'measures' permitted by these orders are bound to result in wanton and unpunished murder, even though officially the law of violence has been abolished. "This is obvious from the directive regarding the use of weapons against recalcitrance. The guards and their commanding officers, who often do not understand the language of the prisoner of war, will not be able to know whether the prisoners' disobedience was due to recalcitrance or to a misunderstanding of the orders. The principle that use of weapons against Soviet prisoners of war is, as a rule, justified absolves the guards from any duty of making reflections about their actions." Omitting two paragraphs not directly relating to this matter, I quote as follows: "The organization of camp police equipped with clubs, whips, and similar weapons, even in camps where all labor is done by the prisoners, is against military rule and tradition. In addition the military authorities thus give into other hands the means for applying punishment without providing adequate control as to how these means are employed." I wish to quote one more sentence taken from Paragraph 5 of these notes-you will find it on Page-194: "Appendix 2 contains a translation of the Russian decree regarding prisoners of war which is in accord with the basic principles of international law as well as with the rules of the Geneva Convention." I shall refrain from quoting the rest of the document as it is of little interest.
COL.POKROVSKY: This document is signed by the Chief of the Foreign Counterintelligence Service, Admiral Canaris. It includes directives containing instructions relating to the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war, dwelling in detail on such sections which Canaris considered as violations of the basic principles of international law and of the Geneva Convention. I should like to supplement this document with a few excerpts from the minutes of the interrogation by Dr. Wengler, a former counselor of the Foreign Counterintelligence Service of the OKW. This document is submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-129 (Document Number USSR-129). Wengler was questioned by me on 19 December 1945, and his testimony is important for purposes of evaluating the line of conduct both of the OKW and Keitel himself.
DR.NELTE: Mr. President, I ask that the document, Exhibit Number USSR-129, which the Russian Prosecutor intends to read, should not be read, but that the witness mentioned in this document, 14 Fob. Dr. Wengler, be called personally to testify in Court, if the Soviet Prosecution is willing. This document, USSR-129, is a record of an interrogation of Dr. Wengler, who was active in Counterintelligence Service in the OKW. It is a question of determining whether the nonapplication of the Geneva Convention as regards Russia is due to the fault of the German Government, the OKW, and the Defendant Keitel. I do not need to state that the clarification of this question is of the utmost significance in judging the responsible persons, not only because of the Counts in the Indictment, but because of the terrible guilt in face of the German people, if the testimony given by this witness should be true. The witness was interrogated in Nuremberg on 19 December 1945. Whether he is still here or in Berlin-he gave his address at the time of the inquiry-I cannot say. But I do believe that the basic decisions of the Tribunal concerning the interpretation of Article 21 of the Charter will justify my request in this respect since, firstly, the summoning of the witness from Berlin does not entail great difficulties, secondly we are concerned with a question of such tremendous significance, even in this setting, that the personal testimony and interrogation by this Tribunal should not be replaced by the mere lecture of the minutes of an inquiry.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you anything you wish to say in answer to that objection?
COL. POHROVSKY: With your permission I should like first of all, in order to clarify the matter, to ask where the witness actually is at the present moment? He is not in Nuremberg. He was brought here especially for this interrogation under the greatest technical difficulties.. The interrogation was conducted according to all the rules of our judicial proceedings, so that this document could be submitted to the Tribunal and accepted as evidence, if the Tribunal so judges, according to Article 19 of the Charter . All the problems concerning this subject, which were of interest to the Soviet Prosecution, are already sufficiently clear from the Document Number USSR-129, which we submit to you, and I see no possibility of having this witness brought here in the near future. Maybe the representatives of the Defense Counsel imagine that it is very easy to produce him, but I do not see any technical possibility of bringing him here a second time. And I repeat that, if the Tribunal does not consider it feasible to accept this document in the suitable manner in which we have formulated it, then we would even agree to refrain from submitting it as evidence and to replace it by other evidence-even though we believe it to be incorrect. But we consider it easier than to bring the witness here a second time. That is all I have to say in reply to this request.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say that you could not bring the witness here, and that as you could not bring him here you would not press the introduction of the document?
COL.POKROVSKY: No, I put it differently. I said that we insist that this document be admitted, since the Tribunal has the right, according to Article 19 of the Charter , to accept this document as evidence. But if we were to choose between two possibilities, either by adding this evidence to the record or by summoning the witness a second time, the technical obstacles which prevent us from so doing would compel us, by preference, to accept the exclusion of this document from the record, in order to avoid any repetition of the difficulties already experienced. We consider that the document is quite correctly compiled, in accordance with all the rules of the Charter , and that the Tribunal should receive it as evidence according to Article 19 of the Charter .
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know first of all, why is it difficult or impossible to bring the witness to Nuremberg in the same way that he was brought to Nuremberg in December 1945; and secondly, has Dr. Nelte and have the other defendants' counsel got full copies in German of the document?
COL. POKROV5KY: Dr. Wengler was interrogated in his native German tongue. The original of his record, of his interrogation, has been submitted to the Tribunal in an adequate number of copies, which are at the disposal of the Defense Counsel. As regards the technical difficulties, I cannot, at present, undertake to give the Tribunal a precise description of all the technical difficulties reported to me by my collaborators, since I can no longer remember them. But I do know that, when they were working on this matter, establishing the existence of the witness, searching for him, bringing him here, they-my collaborators-declared that they could do this once but that they would not be able to do it a second time. Consequently, Dr. Wengler, a free agent, was here in Nuremberg, not for 1 day, but for many days, precisely for the time needed adequately to clear up all the questions which were of interest to us and to interrogate him, since we foresaw the impossibility of summoning him a second time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know where the deponent, the witness, was brought from when he was brought to Nuremberg.
COL. POKROVSKY: From Berlin. He was brought the last time from Berlin.
THE PRESIDENT: Then is he now in Berlin?
COL. POKROVSKY: I do not undertake to answer this question now without making further inquiries. He is not interned.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Nelte, do you want to say anything?
DR. NELTE: I should just like to refer to the last page of the minutes, where the address is given: Dr. Wilhelm Wengler, Berlin-Hermsdorf, Ringstrasse Number 32. We are simply concerned with the question: Which technical difficulties are involved to bring this witness from Berlin to Nuremberg a second time? Of course, I do not know whether the witness is in Berlin, but I assume that he is there.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn. [A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will allow the deposition to be put in evidence, should the Soviet Prosecutor decide to do so. If the document is put in evidence, the Tribunal will desire that the Prosecutor should secure the attendance of the deponent as a witness for cross-examination. If the Prosecution is unable to secure the attendance of the deponent as a witness, then the Tribunal will itself attempt to secure the attendance of the deponent as a witness, for cross-examination.
COL. POKROVSKY: I can report to the Tribunal that I attempted to employ the time spent by the Tribunal in deliberating this problem in discovering if we could bring this witness back again and that I did not receive a conclusive reply from my organization. According to the wish of the Tribunal, I shall omit the topic of his cross-examination and shall only refer to it again if I am informed by my collaborators that we can once more bring the witness before the Tribunal. This would seem to me in accordance with the wishes of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, I am not quite sure that you appreciated quite what I said. What I said was that you are at liberty to put in the document now, if you wish to do so. That is one thing. But, if you do so, you must attempt to secure the attendance of the witness, and should you fail to do so, the Tribunal will attempt to secure the attendance of the witness; but the document will still be in evidence and will not be struck out, although' of course, it will be open to the criticism that it is only a deposition or an affidavit and that the witness has not been produced for cross-examination and therefore the weight that attaches to the testimony will not be so great as it would be if the witness had been produced for cross-examination. Is that clear?
COL. POKROVSKY: Wengler was interrogated by me . . .
THE PRESIDENT: I fear I used inaccurately the word "affidavit." It is only an interrogation. It is not made upon oath and that, of course, will be taken into consideration. But the point is that you can put in the document now if you decide to do so. That is a matter for your discretion. If you do so, you must attempt to secure the attendance of the witness for cross-examination. If you are unable to get him, then the Tribunal will attempt to get him here for cross-examination.
COL. POKROVSKY: When reporting to the Tribunal on the measures we had adopted, I started from the point of view that the Tribunal desired that each witness, whose testimony had been read into the record, could, if necessary, be summoned to appear before the Tribunal for a supplementary cross-examination. That is why I have already attempted to find out whether we can call up this witness now, and since I have not yet received any definite answer from our organization, I wish to invite the attention of the Tribunal to the possibility that we will simply abstain from mentioning these minutes now, as we only need them for the confirmation of one point, already confirmed by a document whim has just been presented to the Tribunal. This is the report signed by Canaris. What is the meaning of Wengler's interrogation? The meaning of Wengler's interrogation is that it shows that the OKW knew of the treatment meted out to the Soviet prisoners. Canaris said the same.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you must decide, Colonel Pokrovsky, whether you wish to put in the document or not. If-you wish to put in the document, you may do so, but I do not think it is right for you to state the contents of the document and at the same time not to put it in. If you wish to put it in, then you must try to secure the attendance of the witness, and if you cannot secure the attendance, the Tribunal will try to secure it.
COL. POKROVSKY: I consider that Wengler's testimony is not important enough for us to pay so very much attention to it. If we can find this witness, we shall examine him at a later date.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
COL. POKROVSKY: In the light of the documents read into the record, and also in view of the protest of the German prisoners of war in Camp 78, which shows how humanely the Soviet authorities treated German military prisoners of the German Army, the sentence from Appendix I of Operations Order Number 14 of the Chief of the Security Police and the SD, concerning the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war, is nothing less than a brazen insult. This sentence can be found on Page 7 of the document submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-3 (Document Number USSR-3). You will find it on Page 204 of your document book: "Thus the Bolshevik soldier has lost his right to be treated as an honest soldier and in accordance with the rules of the Geneva Convention." I beg the Tribunal to recollect that the following directive, dated 7 November 1941, appears in Appendix II of Order Number 11 of the General Staff of the OKW. I quote from Exhibit Number USSR-3, extracts from which appear on Page 233 of your document book-last paragraph in the right column. "The work of the Special Squad, by license of the rear area commander (officer in charge of prisoner-of-war affairs of the district) must be done in such a way that the selecting and sorting out is practically unnoticeable. Executions must be carried out without delay, and at sufficient distance from the camp and from habitations to keep them secret from the other prisoners and the population." These are the transfers of prisoners "to some place in the neighborhood" that Kuntze, the expert executioner, had in mind when he reported to his chiefs on the incidents which occurred during the execution of the 28 crippled prisoners of war. Among the documents submitted to the Tribunal by the Soviet Delegation are data regarding the shooting, on 7 April 1945, at the Seelhorst Cemetery in Hanover, of 150 Soviet prisoners of war and civilians. We submit this data as Exhibit Number USSR-112 (Document Number USSR-112). You will find the data in question on Page 207 of your document book.
COL. POKROVSKY: They have been placed at our disposal by the American investigation authorities. They consist of a number of testimonies, including that of Peter Paluikov, a Red Army officer who had fortuitously escaped the execution. You will find the minutes to which I refer on the same page, 207 of your document book. We also have the testimonies of other members of the local population who had been questioned under oath by the American investigation authorities. Their evidence is corroborated by medical reports on bodies exhumed from the graves al Seelhorst Cemetery. In addition, we submit duly certified photographs. I shall not read all these documents into the record but shall merely point out that the 167 corpses thus exhumed were specially noted in the concluding report of the commission, as enabling the commission to judge, from their appearance, of the "pronounced degree of insufficient nourishment." This circumstance must be stressed so that the Tribunal may have a perfectly clear picture of the food situation prevalent among Soviet prisoners of war in the various camps. Regardless of the territory in which the camp was located, all Soviet prisoners of war were exposed to a regime of hunger with the same sustained and systematic cruelty. While I am thus reporting on the Hitlerian atrocities perpetrated on the prisoners, I find that we now have at our disposal several court verdicts pronounced on the fascist criminals who committed their crimes in the temporarily occupied territories. In accordance with Article 21 of the Charter, I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-87 (Document Number USSR-87) the verdict of a district military tribunal. You will find the entire verdict on Page 214 up to Page 221. It was pronounced in Smolensk, on 19 December 1945. The Tribunal inflicted penalties varying from 12 years hard labor to death by hanging, on 10 Hitlerites directly guilty of the numerous crimes committed in the city and region of Smolensk.
COL. POKROVSKY: I shall not quote the document, but shall merely mention that on Pages 4, 5, and 6 of the verdict, in passages marked in your copies-these pages, that is, 4, 5, and 6 of the verdict, are to be found in your document book on Pages 218, 219, and 222-information is contained how, as a result of pseudo-scientific experiments on prisoners of war by persons who, to the undying shame of German medicine, were known in Germany as professors and doctors, tortured and murdered the prisoners by blood poisoning. The sentence presents further evidence that, as a result of savage ill-treatment by the German escort conveying Soviet prisoners of war, some 10,000 exhausted, half-dead captives perished between Vyasma and Smolensk. It is precisely this passage, this information, which you will find in Subparagraph 3 of the verdict. It appears on Page 218 of your document book. The verdict reflects the systematic mass shooting of prisoners of war in Camp 126, in the city of Smolensk-'`in Transit Camp 126 South"-during the transfer of the prisoners to the camp and to the hospital. The verdict particularly emphasizes the fact that prisoners of war, too exhausted to work, were shot. I should now like to turn to the brutalities committed by the Hitlerites towards members of the Czechoslovakian, Polish, and Yugoslavian Armies. We find, in the Indictment, that one of the most important criminal acts for which the major war criminals are responsible was the mass execution of Polish prisoners of war, shot in the Katyn Forest near Smolensk by the German fascist invaders. I submit to the Tribunal, as a proof of this crone, official documents of the special commission for the establishment and the investigation of the circumstances which attended the executions. The commission acted in accordance with a directive of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union.
COL. POKROVSKY: In addition to members of the Extraordinary State Commission-namely Academicians Burdenko, Alexis Tolstoy, and the Metropolitan Nicolas- this commission was composed of the President of the Pan-Slavonia Committee, Lieutenant General Gundorov; the chairman of the Executive Committee of the Union of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Kolesnikov; of the People's Commissar for Education in the R.S.S.F.R., Academician Potemkin; the Supreme Chief of the Medical Department of the Red Army, General Smirnov; and the Chairman of the District Executive Committee of Smolensk, Melnikov. The commission also included several of the best known medicolegal experts. It would take too long to read into the record that precise and detailed document which I now submit to you as Exhibit Number USSR-54 (Document Number USSR-54), which is a result of the investigation. I shall read into the record only a few comparatively short excerpts. On Page 2 of the document, which is Page 223 in your document book, we read-this passage is marked in your file: "According to the estimates of medico-legal experts, the total number of bodies amounts to over 11,000. The medico-legal experts carried out a thorough examination of the bodies exhumed, and of the documents and material evidence found on the bodies and in the graves. During the exhumation and examination of the corpses, the commission questioned many witnesses among the local inhabitants. Their testimony permitted the determination of the exact time and circumstances of the crimes committed by the German invaders." I believe that I need not quote everything that the Extraordinary Commission ascertained during its investigation about the crimes of the Germans. I only read into the record the general conclusions, which. summarize the work of the commission. You will find the lines read into the record on Page 43 of Exhibit Number USSR-54 if you turn to the original document, or on Page.