dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. BERGOLD: Page 4. It is the letter in which Bormann rails against the Christian religion. Nevertheless, he writes as follows, Page 4: "With regard to religious instruction in schools it seems to me that the existing conditions need not be changed. No National Socialist teacher, according to the clear-cut directives of the Deputy of the Fuehrer, must be accused in any way, if he is prepared to teach the Christian religion in the schools." I omit one sentence. "In the circular of the Deputy of the Fuehrer Number 3/39, of 4 January 1939, it is expressly stated that teachers of religion are not by any means to make their own choice of Biblical material for religious instruction but are obliged to give instruction on all the Biblical subjects. They are to abstain from all reinterpreting, analyzing, or paraphrasing of this directive; attempts of this sort have been made several times by certain church groups." This is a reference to the so-called German Christians. I then quote from Document 113-PS, document book of the Prosecution. It is Directive Number 104/38, I quote: "The neutrality of the Party with respect to the Church, which has been emphasized from the beginning, demands that any possible friction be avoided. Clergymen, as political leaders or as leaders or section leaders in the Party and its affiliated organizations, do not possess the required freedom of decision in this dual obligation, as has been shown by experience; moreover, there is the danger that owing to their church of lice they will make use of the Movement for their purposes in the church struggle. The Deputy of the Fuehrer has therefore ordered: "1. Clergymen holding positions in the Party are to be immediately relieved of their Party functions." I then quote from Document O99-PS, in which Bormann, in a letter of 19 January 1940, addressed to the Reich Minister of Finance, criticizes the low contributions of the Church toward the war. I quote from the second paragraph: "The assessment of so low a contribution has surprised me.
DR. BERGOLD: I gather from numerous reports that the political communities have to raise so high a war contribution that the carrying out of their own tasks, which are often very important, as for instance their work in public welfare, is in jeopardy." I omit one sentence. "I understand that the assessment of so low a contribution is partly explained by the fact that only the churches of the old Reich which are entitled to raise taxes are called upon to make their contribution to the war, whereas the sections of the Protestant and Catholic Church, which are entitled to demand church dues in Austria and the Sudetenland, are exempted . . ." I omit the rest of the sentence. "This differentiation in the treatment of individual sections of the churches and church organizations is, in my opinion, quite unjustified." I then quote from Document 117-PS, a letter from Bormann to Rosenberg, dated 28 January 1939. I quote from the second paragraph: ' "The Party has repeatedly in recent years had to explain its attitude on the plan for a State Church or for some other measure establishing closer connection between the State and the Church. The Party has always emphatically rejected such plans for two reasons. First, a connection between the State and the Church, as the organization of a religious community which does not in all fields aim at the practical application of National Socialist principles, would not fulfill the ideological demands of National Socialism. Second, purely practical and political considerations speak against such a formal union." I then refer to Document L-22, which deals with a conference in the Fuehrer's headquarters on 16 July 1941, at which Hitler, Rosenberg, Lammers, Keitel, Goering, and Bormann were present.
THE PRESIDENT: Could you tell us in what part of the book this is and what is the number?
DR. BERGOLD: L-22. It is approximately in the middle of the book. Bormann acted as secretary of the conference and wrote the minutes. The Prosecution stated that Bormann's incidental remarks showed that he had participated in the discussion, at that conference, of plans for the incorporation of Russian territory into the Reich. I shall therefore have to read this incidental remark which he made.
THE PRESIDENT: This is L-221, not L-22.
DR. BERGOLD: The first incidental remark is in the 14th paragraph and reads as follows: "Incidentally, does an educated class still exist in the Ukraine, or are the Ukrainians of a higher class to be found only as emigrants outside Russia?"
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, could you not tell us what original page it is? In our document book there are headings "original page" so and so.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, they are there, but-one moment, please, I shall have to look for it again. The translation which I have received has a different type of division-Page 4.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. "We have to create a garden of Eden...." The first part of Page 4 is, "We have to create a garden of Eden...."
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, yes, yes, the second paragraph, the third paragraph, no, after each one-it is the third paragraph.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on, then.
DR. BERGOLD: Have you got it, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: I shall not know until you tell me how it begins.
DR. BERGOLD: It begins, "Incidentally, does an educated class still exist in the Ukraine...?"
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have got that, yes. Page 3.
DR. BERGOLD: It is on Page 3.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is on Page 4. It goes like this: "Is there still anything like an educated class in the Ukraine?"
DR. BERGOLD: According to the document book which has just been submitted to me, it is on Page 3, but it may be Page 4.
THE PRESIDENT: The original is Page 4.
DR. BERGOLD: Then on Page 5, Page 4, no, it is Page 3, Your Lordship. Page 4 has a very similar remark which reads: "It has frequently become apparent that Rosenberg has a great deal of liking for the Ukrainians, He wants to enlarge the old Ukraine considerably." And then the last remark on Page Page 5 in the English text, third paragraph from the end, a note for Party member Klopfer: "Please ask Dr. Meyer as soon as possible for the data on the proposed organization and the filling of the positions." Then at the end, Page 6 of your original, last paragraph: "Incidentally, the Fuehrer emphasized that activity of the churches was out of the question. Papen had already submitted to him through the Foreign Office a long memorandum stating that now the right moment for re-establishing the churches had arrived. But that was definitely out of the question." This refers to a statement by Hitler. Then I come to Document 1520-PS. I want first of all to draw the Tribunal's attention to the fact that in this record, which Lammers wrote, Bormann is not at all mentioned at the beginning among those present, apparently because his activity as secretary was considered a matter of course. I should now like to read from Page 2 of your original, from the paragraph beginning, "Then the discussion turned to the question of freedom of religion..." I shall begin on the eighth line of the fourth paragraph: "Bormann agreed with this attitude absolutely but said that the only question was whether the Reich Minister for the East, who after all had a name in Germany, would not through such a law create too far-reaching obligations which would then have repercussions in the Reich. The churches themselves were going to define what was meant by 'religious freedom,' and he predicted that such a law would result in hundreds of new letters and complaints on the part of the churches within the Reich." I omit one sentence.
DR. BERGOLD: "Finally it was agreed that the entire question should not be settled by me"-that is, Lammers-"in the form of a law but that the Reich Commissioners should take the existing religious freedom for granted and should issue the necessary directives." Then Document 072-PS, a letter from Bormann to Rosenberg; of that I should like to read the third paragraph: "The Fuehrer emphasized that in the Balkans the use of your experts would not be necessary, since there were no art objects to be confiscated. In Belgrade there was only the collection of Prince Paul which would be returned to him intact. The remaining material of the lodges, et cetera , would be taken care of by the representatives of Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich." From Document 062-PS I should like to read the introduction, in which the Defendant Hess deals with the orders he had issued for the treatment of airmen. I quote: "The French civilian population received official instructions by radio and otherwise on what they were to do at landings of German aircraft." From Document 205-PS I should like to read the opening words of Bormann, the second paragraph.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the date of 062-PS? [The interpreter wrongly translated this as 205-PS.]
DR. BERGOLD: 5th of May 1943, circular letter Number 70/43.
THE PRESIDENT: I think I have got it now.
THE INTERPRETER: You have 205, My Lord.
DR. BERGOLD: 5th of May 1943. THE PRESIDENT; No, but I wanted to know the date of 062-PS. It appears to be 13 March 1940.
DR. BERGOLD: 062-PS? Yes, the date of that is 13 March 1940. That is the one I read before.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not understand why you read the document in view of Paragraph 4 of it which is as follows: "Likewise, enemy parachutists are immediately to be arrested or liquidated."
DR. BERGOLD: I shad return to that in my final speech, Mr. President. I can present my arguments now if the Tribunal so desires, but I do not think the argument is wanted now.
THE PRESIDENT: No, no; I thought you might have another paragraph in the document which you wish to refer to.
DR. BERGOLD: No. I referred to the introduction, which was the reason for this document, namely, the statement of the Defendant Hess preceding Bormann's document. I come then to Document 205-PS, dated 5 May 1943, circular letter Number 70/43. I shall quote the following sentence: "I request that along the lines set out in the attached copy the necessity for a firm but just treatment of the foreign workers be made clear in a suitable manner to members of the Party and the population." This circular letter itself was issued by the Defendant Sauckel. I now come to Document 025-PS, of 4 September 1942 and I read . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Which number are you going to now?
DR. BERGOLD: 025-PS, dated 4 September 1942. I shad quote the last sentence of the second paragraph: "Therefore, and this is also the opinion of the Reich Marshal and of Reichsleiter Bormann, the problem of domestic workers must be solved in a way different from that mentioned above." And then I quote from Paragraph 3, starting with the second sentence: "In connection with this"-namely, the employment in Germany of women workers from the East-"Reichsleiter Bormann also agrees that members of the Armed Forces or other agencies who have brought female domestic workers into the Reich illegally will have their action subsequently approved; approval of such action in the future will not be withheld, regardless of the official recruiting scheme. The determining factor in the recruiting of Ukrainian female workers is the specific wish of the Fuehrer that only girls whose conduct and appearance permit a permanent stay in Germany should be brought into the Reich." Then I shall read from Figure 1, almost the last paragraph on Page 3 of your document book: "Recruiting, especially in the case of domestic servants, must be on a voluntary basis and must in practice be carried out with the help of the offices of the Reichsfuehrer SS." This concludes my quotations from the document book of the Prosecution, and I should like now to refer only to the Russian Document USSR-172 and to Document Doenitz-91, of which I shall make use in my final speech. This, then, brings me to the end of the presentation of my evidence.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, may I suggest that if this witness Kempka can be located, counsel might submit an affidavit or an interrogatory to any persons who have knowledge of the alleged death of Defendant Bormann. We certainly would have no objection to it.
DR. BERGOLD: I have no objection either.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, have you any information as to what this witness Kempka can tell us about the death of Bormann?
DR. BERGOLD: According to the affidavit, which I read to the Tribunal, he is said to have been present when Bormann was killed by a tank explosion. He would, therefore, be an eye witness of Bormann's death, like the witness Rattenhuber, from whom the witness Kruger obtained her information. If the witnesses Kempka and Rattenhuber were found, I would be satisfied with affidavits and interrogatories.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I have seen this statement by Kempka some time ago, which is in affidavit form and which has come to our attention. But my recollection is that he does not state positively that he saw him die. But I again suggest we might make further efforts to get an affidavit from him, or an interrogatory, or carefully question him about the circumstances of the death.
THE PRESIDENT: A statement was made to the Tribunal at one time by the Prosecution suggesting that Bormann had escaped from the Chancellery in a tank and then the tank had been stopped or blown up on a bridge and that two of the persons inside the tank had last seen Bormann wounded, or something of that sort.
MR. DODD: Yes, I think that is the best information.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, if the Prosecution has any material in the shape of affidavits or anything of that sort, the Tribunal would like to have them placed before them.
MR. DODD: Yes, Sir. I am sure we do not have an affidavit. As I recall, it was last fall when someone sent down here what purported to be a narrative account by Kempka of the last days in Berlin. Now, I will try to look that up and present it to you.
THE PRESIDENT: If you can go into the matter, then possibly they might be located through the investigations which you would make.
MR. DODD: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Then interrogatories or affidavits could be obtained.
MR. DODD: Very well, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Then that concludes your presentation of evidence on behalf of Bormann?
DR. BERGOLD: That is all I have, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Thank you. Colonel Pokrovsky, is there anything you wish to say? I beg your pardon. Dr. Bergold, you have offered in evidence all the exhibits that you want to offer and have given them exhibit numbers, have you?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, in my document book.
THE PRESIDENT: You are intending to offer your document book as evidence?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It has exhibit numbers on each document, has it?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, each document has a number.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Colonel Pokrovsky, the Tribunal would like to know whether you have arrived at any agreement with Dr. Stahmer on behalf of the Defendant Goering with reference to affidavit evidence or witnesses, with reference to the Katyn matter.
COLONEL Y. V. POKROVSKY (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): My Lord, we have had three conferences with the Defense Counsel. After the second meeting I told the Tribunal that, in order to shorten the proceedings, the Soviet Prosecution was willing to read into the record only a part of the evidence submitted. About 15 minutes ago I had a meeting with Dr. Exner and Dr. Stahmer, and they told me that their understanding of the Tribunal's ruling was that the old decision for the summoning of two witnesses was still in force and that only additional documents were now under discussion. In view of this interpretation of the Tribunal's ruling, I do not think that we shall be able to come to an agreement with the Defense. As I see it, the decision in this matter must now rest in the hands of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal orders that, unless an agreement is arrived at, the evidence shall not be given entirely by affidavits and that the three witnesses on either side shall be called first thing on Monday morning at 10 o'clock, unless you can arrive at an agreement before that, that the evidence is to be offered in affidavits.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, may I say something on this subject? A number of counsel who are interested in the Katyn case had a conference this morning; among them were Professor Exner and Dr. Stahmer. We agreed to ask the Tribunal to allow two witnesses to be examined here in person by the Defense. These witnesses would be Colonel Ahrens and First Lieutenant Von Eichborn. We also agreed to dispense with the hearing of the third witness but decided to request that an affidavit of this witness, and in addition two other affidavits, be submitted. I believe this to be a suggestion which both satisfies us and saves the most time: Two witnesses would be heard and three affidavits submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal sees no objection to there being two witnesses called and one affidavit. But their order was that three witnesses on either side-that the evidence should be limited to three witnesses on either side; and they, therefore, are not prepared to allow further affidavits to be given. The evidence must be confined to the evidence of three persons on either side. They may give their evidence either by oral evidence or by affidavit.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, as far as I was informed, the original decision stated that three witnesses were allowed but did not mention affidavits. That was the reason why Dr. Stahmer and Professor Exner assumed that, regardless of the witnesses, certain individual points could be proved by means of affidavits. I think that the hearing of two witnesses and three affidavits would be quicker than the examination of three witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid Dr. Stahmer and Dr. Exner drew a wrong inference from the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal intended and intends that the evidence should be limited to the evidence of three witnesses on either side, and whether they give their evidence orally or by affidavit does not matter. We left it to the Soviet Prosecution and to defendant's counsel to see whether they could agree that it should be given by affidavit in order to save time. But that was not intended to extend the number of witnesses who might give evidence.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, in that case, I should be grateful if Dr. Stahmer and Professor Exner would be heard. I myself have not been in Nuremberg recently; I was therefore not present when these details were discussed and it is difficult for me-I see that Dr. Stahmer is now-perhaps Dr. Stahmer himself could speak about it.
DR. STAHMER: I have just heard Dr. Siemers' report, at least a part of it. I mentioned already during the last discussion, Mr. President, that Professor Exner arid I had understood the decision to mean that besides the three witnesses we were also allowed to submit affidavits. Indeed, the original decision granted us five witnesses, though it made the reservation that only three of them could give evidence here in Court. We assumed, therefore, that we could submit affidavits of those witnesses out of the five who had been originally granted us but who would not give evidence in Court. The original decision granted us five witnesses, and then a later decision of the Tribunal...
THE PRESIDENT: Listen, that is not the recollection of the Tribunal; and if you say so, you must produce written evidence that that was the decision. The Tribunal's recollection is not that five witnesses were allowed.
DR. STAHMER: Yes, yes, yes. I shall submit written evidence of these decisions to the Tribunal. I cannot remember offhand when they were made, but originally five witnesses were granted; then I named another witness, who was also granted, and it was only afterwards that the decision to allow only three witnesses to give evidence in Court was announced.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, when the order was made limiting it to three out of five, there was no reference in that order to affidavits, as far as I know.
DR. STAHMER: No, affidavits were not mentioned then.
THE PRESIDENT: What I am telling you is that the Tribunal in making that order of limitation intended to limit the whole of the evidence to three witnesses on either side, because the matter is only a subsidiary allegation of fact; and the Tribunal thinks that at this stage of the proceedings such an allegation of fact ought not to be investigated by a great number of witnesses, and three witnesses are quite sufficient on either side. Therefore the Tribunal does not desire to hear and did not intend that it should have to hear any evidence except the evidence of three witnesses, either orally or by affidavit. The Tribunal will now adjourn. [The Tribunal adjourned until Monday 1 July at 1000 hours.]
THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make. The Tribunal orders that any of the evidence taken on commission which the Defense Counsel or the Prosecution wish to use shall be offered in evidence by them. This evidence will then become a part of the record, subject to any objections. Counsel for the organizations should begin to make up their document books as soon as possible and put in their requests for translations. That is all. Dr. Stahmer.
DR. STAHMER: With reference to the events at Katyn, the Indictment contains only the remark: "In September 1941 11,000 Polish officers, prisoners of war, were killed in the Katyn woods near Smolensk." The Russian Prosecution only submitted the details at the session of 14 February 1946. Document USSR-54 was then submitted to the Tribunal. This document is an official report by the Extraordinary State Commission, which was officially authorized to investigate the Katyn case. This commission, after questioning the witnesses. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal are aware of the document and they only want you to call your evidence; that is all.
DR. STAHMER: I wanted only to add, Mr. President, that according to this document, there are two accusations: One, that the period of the shooting of the Polish prisoners of war was the autumn of 1941; and the second assertion is, that the killing was carried out by some German military authority, camouflaged under the name of "Staff of Engineer Battalion 537."
THE PRESIDENT: That is all in the document, is it not? I have just told you we know the document. We only want you to call your evidence.
DR. STAHMER: Then, as my first witness for the Defense, I shall call Colonel Friedrich Ahrens to the witness stand.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I have a request to make before the evidence is heard in the Katyn case. The Tribunal decided that three witnesses should be heard, and it hinted that in the interests of equality, the Prosecution could also produce only three witnesses, either by means of direct examination or by means of an affidavit. In the interests of that same principle of equality, I should be grateful if the Soviet Delegation, in the same way as the Defense, would state the names of their witnesses before the hearing of the evidence. The Defense submitted the names of their witnesses weeks ago. Unfortunately, up to now, I note that in the interests of equality and with regard to the treatment of the Defense and the Prosecution, the Soviet Delegation has so far not given the names of the witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: General Rudenko, were you going to give me the names of the witnesses?
GEN. RUDENKO: Yes, Mr. President. Today we notified the General Secretary of the Tribunal that the Soviet Prosecution intends to call three witnesses to the stand: Professor Prosorovsky, who is the Chief of the Medico-Legal Experts Commission; the Bulgarian subject, Professor of Legal Medicine at Sofia University Markov, who at the same time was a member of the so-called International Commission created by the Germans; and Professor Bazilevsky, who was the deputy mayor of Smolensk during the time of the German occupation. [The witness Ahrens took the stand.]