dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, one might commence with Article 21, that says: "It"-the Tribunal-"shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various Allied countries for the investigation of war crimes..." My Lord, the procedure which was set up was that the United Nations War Crimes Commission, under the chairmanship, first of Lord Findlay and then of Lord Wright, would gather the material, examine it, and send it back to the respective prosecuting nation. The procedure was that the national office sent a report to the United Nations War Crimes Commission who then considered it and sent it back to the authority in the various countries that dealt with the prosecution of the crimes. My Lord, what is being put forward at the moment is a synopsis of the report sent by various countries to the United Nations War Crimes Commission, in the form of the suggested charges that should be brought and a summary of the supporting evidence. These are available and authenticated, and the document which we should like to use, for the convenience of the Tribunal, is a synopsis of these charges, showing the unit, the date, the place, the incident, and the source, including the United Nations War Crimes Commission's files.
THE PRESIDENT: But, Sir David, as I understand what you said, these documents, of which this is a summary, would come for-ward to the United Nations War Crimes Commission for some action by them, for some form of approval, after which they would send them back to the countries concerned and they would be sent to a Tribunal for the purpose of trying those individuals for whom the United Nations War Crimes Commission approved the trial. This is a summary of charges which has not been approved by the United Nations War Crimes Commission.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: They may or may not. It is the earlier stage of a report of the United Nations War Crimes Com-mission. Each of the United Nations had its national office for inves-tigating and reporting on War Crimes. That was an essential step the national office had-first of all, to collect the evidence, put forward the charge, and put forward that report to the United Nations War Crimes Commission. It then came back with an approval or a comment of the United Nations War Crimes Com-mission to the prosecuting authority of the various countries. If, My Lord, simply for the sake of clarification, I can give my own example when I was in the charge of this: The British national office was in charge of Sir Thomas Barnes, the Treasury Solicitor, who collected the reports from the various committees of inquiries. He sent these forward to the United Nations War Crimes Com-mission. They made their comment. It then came back to me and I decided whether there would be a prosecution or not. My Lord, I am putting this forward as an authenticated report of the United Nations. It is the committee which each country established in order to collect the evidence and to forward that evidence to the United Nations body. My Lord, what we are now submitting is the fact that each of the United Nations, by an authoritative committee, collected the evidence, summarized the evidence, and put it forward, which in its form does ipso facto give it probative value. THE PRESIDENT; You say, don't you, that it falls exactly within the words of the third-last line of Article 21. It says, in the following words: "... documents of the committees set up in the various Allied countries for the investigation of war crimes..."
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is so, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to look at the docu-ment and see just exactly what is its make-up. Do you have an original document? SIR DAVID MAXWEL
L-FYFE: My Lord, this is one which is certified by Colonel Ledingham, the Secretary General of the United Nations War Crimes Commission. My Lord, here is one which has been accepted by the United Nations War Crimes Commission, as many of them have.
THE PRESIDENT: We have looked at the document. Now, before the Tribunal adjourns for the purpose of considering this matter, they would hear anything further you wish to say, Sir David.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I would call your attention to the number, of course, that had reached the stage of being approved by the United Nations War Crimes Commission. That would be necessary to my argument.
THE PRESIDENT: What you are asking is that you wish to make use of the summary which you have?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I want to make that comment.
THE PRESIDENT: The approval of the decision rests with the national authority?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: When I was the Attorney General, it rested with me. I understand the same procedure is in effect in other countries where it rests with the national authority. [Herr Pelckmann approached the lectern.]
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Pelckmann.
HERR PELCKMANN: Whether the evidence which is now before the Prosecution is in the appropriate form and whether as a report from Allied Governments or from the United Nations War Crimes Commission it can be used according to Article 21 is something which I cannot personally judge. I leave that confidently. in the hands of the Tribunal. What appears important to me is that accord-ing to Article 21 the High Tribunal can take cognizance of these things-but, in my opinion, only during the Prosecution's presenta-tion of evidence. We are now in the middle of submitting evidence for the Defense, and if the Prosecution are making these reports the subject of their cross-examination, then there does not seem to be any objection to that, according to rules of procedure. But a mere judicial notice by the Tribunal, without making- these reports the subject of cross-examination, I deem inadmissible if the witnesses for the SS who are being called now have to comment on these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Isn't that really a matter for the Tribunal to decide? It is a matter of whether the documents should be put in now when the witness can comment on them. Whether it comes under Article 21 is a matter to be decided; that is a matter of law. Whether it should be put in now or after seems to be a matter entirely for the Tribunal.
HERR PELCKMANN: I considered it important to say that if the High Tribunal accept these reports as evidence under Article 21, then, as I see it, I can only assume that the presentation of evidence by the Prosecution has been completed in order to put it before the witness. If the documents are put to the witness, I would consider it fair if, in view of the extraordinary bulk of the documents, the Defense would be given ample time to prepare for examination on these documents. That would take at least two days. The use of these documents by the Tribunal, even if it were for official notice only, without examining the witness about them, is, I think, not permissible, since the presentation of evidence by the Prosecution has been completed and-this would mean an inadmissible extension of the material for one side and a limitation for the Defense.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider what you say. The Tribunal will adjourn. [A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not in any way accept Dr. Pelckmann's submission that it is inconvenient or unfair to the Defense that documents should be put in at this stage. It considers that in all the circumstances of the case and having regard to the late stage at which the Trial has arrived, and having regard to the nature of the document which is offered in evidence by the Prose-cution, the Tribunal ought not to admit the document now.
MAJOR JONES: Witness, with what division of the Waffen-SS did you serve during the course of the war?
HAUSER: For two years I led the 2d Division, and later ...
MAJOR JONES: Just one moment. What was it called? Mat was its name?
HAUSER: The division later was called "Das Reich"; formerly it had the name "VD Division." From the beginning of 1942 to 1944, the 2d SS Panzer Corps; from 1944 on I was in the Army again.
MAJOR JONES: I don't want to leave the Reich Division for a moment. During what period were you serving with the Reich Division?
HAUSER: I did not understand exactly.
MAJOR JONES: In what periods were you serving with the Reich Division? From what date?
HAUSER: Beginning with its setting up in the autumn of 1939 until I was wounded a second time in October 1941.
MAJOR JONES: You did not return to serve with that division at all?
HAUSER: I did not serve with that division later on because I was then commanding general and commander-in-chief of an army.
MAJOR JONES: So that the Reich Division was the only division you served with in the field as a divisional commander, was it?
HAUSER: No, there were others there after me who commanded.
MAJOR JONES: But the Das Reich was the only division which you commanded personally during the course of the war?
HAUSER: During the time when I was divisional commander I was the only commander of this division.
MAJOR JONES: Did you command any other Waffen-SS division apart from Das Reich?
HAUSER: There were two and later three divisions which belonged to my Panzer Corps.
MAJOR JONES: What were those divisions?
HAUSER: First of all there was the 1st Division, the Leibstan-darte; then the 2d Division, Das Reich; and the 3d, the "Totenkopf" Division. Later, in 1944, the 9th and 10th Divisions belonged to it.
MAJOR JONES: What were the names of these divisions?
HAUSER: The names were Hohenstaufen, Götz von Berlichingerf -I beg your pardon, Frundsberg.
MAJOR JONES: During what period was the Leibstandarte Division under your command?
HAUSER: The Leibstandarte was under my command from the beginning of 1943, about the end of January, until the beginning of August.
MAJOR JONES: From January 1943 to August 1943?
HAUSER: Yes.
MAJOR JONES: You were in command of that division when it was fighting near Kharkov-you were in command of the corps, rather, in which the Leibstandarte Division was, when it was fight-ing near Kharkov in the spring of 19,43, weren't you?
HAUSER: The division was under my command during the fighting around Kharkov.
MAJOR JONES: Have you any knowledge of the fact that Staro-verovka, the town, was burned by the 2d Regiment of the Leibstandarte Division?
HAUSER: No, I know nothing of that.
MAJOR JONES: And that that regiment also burned down Stanitchnoye?
HAUSER: No, that I do not know.
MAJOR JONES: And that it burned down Yefrenovka, murder-ing the civilian population, in the spring of 1943, near Kharkov?
HAUSER: I do not know that and I cannot believe it either, because the fighting at that time did not give enough time for tasks other than military tasks.
MAJOR JONES: Fighting did not give your troops time to burn down villages as they went through-are you saying that? That was one of the outstanding characteristics of your form of warfare on the Eastern Front, wasn't it?
HAUSER: No, I deny that. The conception of "scorched earth" was not created by us. If villages went up in flames during the fighting, that is often unavoidable. I do not believe that the villages were set on fire intentionally because it was in the interest of the operations we were carrying out that these villages be retaken.
MAJOR JONES: It was because of incidents like those burnings that Himmler was telling the officers of your three SS divisions of the terrible reputation they had created, wasn't it? Those were typical instances of your forms of warfare on the Eastern Front, weren't they?
HAUSER: No, Heinrich Himmler did not say anything about that in that speech. He mentioned the terror, which I personally rejected.
MAJOR JONES: The Reich Division, when was that under your command?
HAUSER: The Reich Division was under my command at the same time, from the end of January 1943 until August of the same year.
MAJOR JONES: Did you command it subsequently. at all, as corps commander or army commander?
HAUSER: Only afterward, when I was commanding an army, did the division come under my command again, in Normandy.
MAJOR JONES: Did you receive any reports of the numerous murders and burnings of villages that the Das Reich Division was responsible for in France in the month of June 1944?
HAUSER: I know from the Indictment the accusation. that in southern France, during the fight against the De Gaulle army, there was fighting during which villages had been set on fire. At that time the division was not yet under my command. I was still in the East. I learned of these events only here during my captivity.
MAJOR JONES: I am referring not to villages burned during action, but villages burned as punitive measures by units of your Waffen-SS division. Did you never hear reports of those incidents?
HAUSER: I have heard of this one case in southern France only here in the Indictment.
MAJOR JONES: In June 1944, for instance, the Panzer Grenadier Regiment 3 burned the village of St. Germain-de-Belair. You know nothing of that?
HAUSER: No, at the moment I do not know.
MAJOR JONES: And Oradour-sur-Glane? It was the Reich Division that was responsible for that atrocity, wasn't it, when 793 men, women, and children were deliberately murdered? You never heard of the atrocities of Oradour-sur-Glane performed by the Reich Division when it was a component part of your corps?
HAUSER: I have heard this name and the accusation here, during my captivity, from the Indictment. Before that I had no knowledge of it. It apparently concerns an individual company belonging to that division, which was put into action through local orders of the field Kommandantur.
MAJOR JONES: The Panzer Grenadier Regiment, was that not under your command?
HAUSER: No, at that time it was not yet under my command because I only returned to France from the East at the end of June.
MAJOR JONES: That was characteristic use of the units of Waffen-SS for these terror purposes then, was it not-the very point I have been putting to you for many minutes through this cross--examination?
HAUSER: I have repeatedly expressed that it was not a typical characteristic of this division.
MAJOR JONES: The Death's-Head Division, when did you com-mand that?
HAUSER: The Death's-Head Division, too, was under my com-mand at the same time, from the end of January 1943 until August 1943. . MAJOR JONES: Did you know that the 1st Regiment, the 7th Com-pany of a detachment belonging to the Totenkopf Division, had in Warsaw murdered about 45,000 Jewish men, women, and children? Didn't you hear of that?
HAUSER: In what year was that supposed to have happened?
MAJOR JONES: In the year 1943, when you were commanding the corps to which this division belonged, the Totenkopf Division, with the great tradition of murders in concentration camps.
HAUSER: The division as such came under my command not during the fighting at Warsaw but at Kharkov. That is apparently again a confusion between the men and the guard units of the con-centration camps.
MAJOR JONES: Did you know that the 1st Regiment, the 7th Company of the Totenkopf Division, had shot 40 Russian prisoners of war near Kharkov in August 1943, for instance?
HAUSER: No; in August 1943 the Totenkopf Division was no longer near Kharkov. It was further south at the Mius River.
MAJOR JONES: Would that be a convenient time to adjourn? I have only a few more questions to put to this witness. [The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.] Afternoon Session
MAJOR JONES: Witness, did you know that the Prinz Eugen Division had been responsible for the massacre at Lidice in June 1942?
HAUSER: I did not understand the name of the place.
MAJOR JONES: It is a very famous place, Lidice, L-i-d-i-c-e.
HAUSER: No, I already left the division in the year 1941 and had nothing to do with it after that time. I heard nothing about this.
MAJOR JONES: Did you hear the name today for the first time?
HAUSER: Yes, I rather think so.
MAJOR JONES: Oh, the whole world knows of the massacre of Lidice. Are you saying seriously to the Court you never heard of it? You have admitted that the Prinz Eugen Division was an SS division, have you not?
HAUSER: Yes.
MAJOR JONES: I want you to look at Document D-944, to be Exhibit GB-566, because you have said that units of the Waffen-SS did not set fire to villages or commit atrocities against the inhabitants. This is a statement from the Yugoslav comn-Assion for ascertaining war crimes, taken from a member of the SS, Leander Holtzer; and he declares: "In August 1943 the 23rd Company under the command of company leader Untersturmbannfuehrer Schuh set fire to a village on the railway line Jablanica-Prozor by order of the battalion commander, Obersturmbannfuehrer Wagner. The inhabitants of the village were shot in the meantime. "In August 1943, on the orders of the same person, the 23rd Company set fire to a village on the railway line Niksic-Avtovac; and the inhabitants of the village were shot. The order for the shooting came from Jablanica and the villages were 'burned down already in the morning. The shootings in Pancevo were carried out by the police agent Gross, former master dyer, and Brunn, a former master miller from the SS Division Prinz Eugen, from Pancevo. The latter received a reward of 20,000 dinars for the hangings at the cemetery." Did you know members of the Waffen-SS were from time to time employed for hanging prisoners?
HAUSER: It is striking that this company was called the 23rd. We had no numbering of this sort. Besides, I cannot tell you any-thing about it since I never commanded this division. The Prinz Eugen Division included many racial Germans from the Balkans; and the first commander, Fritsch, also was a "Volksdeutscher." I believe that the war in the Balkans bore, on both sides, a different aspect from that found elsewhere.
MAJOR JONES: Now, finally, I want to deal with the unity of the SS organization. I suggest to you that the Waffen-SS, the Allgemeine SS, the SD, and the Police branches of the SS formed one great unit of the Nazi State. Do you agree with that?
HAUSER: No. I stated again and again that this apparent unity did not exist; that we had no connection with the Allgemeine SS nor with the SD, but were independent under the command of the Army. Only small details of the Waffen-SS were assigned to tasks in the rear areas under the command of the Higher SS and Police Leader. And that seems also to have applied hi Warsaw, where the rear formations of the cavalry brigade ...
MAJOR JONES: For the purposes of discipline and promotion, the Waffen-SS came under Himmler, did it not?
HAUSER: Only in juridical matters. In the first instance the divisional commander had the jurisdiction, but sentences beyond a fixed maximum were subject to Himmler's confirmation.
MAJOR JONES: Listen to what the leader of the SS, Himmler, says about the unity of his own organization, this armed SS. This is when he was addressing the officers of the SS Leibstandarte of Adolf Hitler: "This Waffen-SS will live only if our entire SS lives, if the entire corps is actually an order which lives according to its inherent laws and realizes that one part cannot exist without the other. One cannot imagine you without the Allgemeine SS; and the latter cannot be imagined without you. The Police is not to be imagined without the SS, nor can we be imagined without the executive of the State, which is in our hands." That is an extract from Document 1918-PS. Then he said again in 1943: "It must be so and it must so come about that this SS organi-zation with all its branches, the Allgemeine SS, which is the common, basis of all of them, the Waffen-SS, and the Order Police, the Sipo, with the whole economic administration, schooling, ideological tra ining, the whole question of kindred, is one bloc, one body, one organization, even under the tenth Reichsfuehrer SS." That is from Document 1919-PS. Is not that a true picture of the SS?
HAUSER: He does not say it was so, he says it must be so and it should be so, because he knew that unity did not exist.
MAJOR JONES: Then finally I want to put to you Hitler's ideas about the Waffen-SS. This is Document D-665, Exhibit GB-280, which I referred to this morning.
THE PRESIDENT: You didn't give us the number for that docu-ment which you said took place in 1943.
MAJOR JONES: That is the famous 1919-PS, My Lord, Exhibit USA-170. [Turning to the witness.] These are Hitler's ideas on the Waffen--SS. He says that the Greater German Reich in its final form would not include within its structure anything but national entities who are right from the beginning well-disposed toward the Reich: "It is therefore necessary to maintain beyond the core of the Reich a State military police capable of representing and im-posing the authority of the Reich at home in any situation." Then he goes on: "Having returned home in the ranks of the Army after having proved their worth in the field, the units of the Waffen-SS will have the authority to execute their tasks as 'State Police'..." That again is a picture of the unity of the SS by the leader of the Nazi State. Are you saying that he was wrong and that you were right in this matter?
HAUSER: No, those are his ideas for the future, ideas which had not yet been realized, but which he intended to have realized after the war.
MAJOR JONES: I have no further questions.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I would like to put only a very few questions to this witness, as supplement to the detailed cross-examination which was conducted by my honorable British colleague. I am submitting to the Tribunal as Exhibit USSR-520 the report ...
THE PRESIDENT: Have you fresh matters to go into or fresh documents to put in?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have a few fresh documents which I would like to submit, and in connection therewith I have a few questions to put to the witness-only three or four questions. I am submitting to the Tribunal as Document USSR-520 a sum-marized statement of the Yugoslav State Commission, which deals especially with the actions of the SS Mountain Division Prinz Eugen. Mr. Elwyn Jones has already quoted documents referring to this division. This is a very explicit document. I would like the witness to pay attention to Pages 3, 4, and 5 of the document; that is a list of the persons annihilated during one single action. These are not only the names of single persons but the names of the families which were killed by this division. Now I would like the witness to follow me while I am reading two para-graphs from this voluminous document. I quote Page 5 of the Russian text: "After the murder had been carried out, these SS troops went in the direction of the villages of Srijane, Bisko, Gornji-Dolec, and Putisic in order to continue there mass murder and arson..."
THE PRESIDENT: Can you tell us which page it is in the English?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Page 6, Mr. President, Page 6. It is the fourth paragraph from the end -of the document, from the -last paragraph. May I continue?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.