dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
KIVELISHA: I could not imagine this, especially as the Germans had then at their disposal time and many possibilities for supplying the prisoners of war with food. Further, to my previous statements I shall again repeat that if the German authorities were unable to provide the prisoners of war with food, the peaceful population did everything in their power to feed the Russian prisoners. However, obviously neither the German authorities nor the German Command issued any instructions on this matter. I have already reported that no opportunity was given for friendly relations between the prisoners of war and the peaceful citizens. On the contrary, any persons who tried to bring food to the prisoners or any prisoner who accepted the food from the citizens was promptly shot.
DR. LATERNSER: But you can certainly imagine that it must have presented immense difficulties if, as you have just testified, 100,000 prisoners had been taken at that time in the area of Uman?
KIVELISHA: Not all the prisoners of war were concentrated at Uman at one and the same time. There were several stationary and permanent camps, only several of them were at Uman.
DR. LATERNSER: I was not speaking about the food problem in Uman Camp. We are still talking about the feeding during the first days after their capture.
KIV ELISHA: When I was brought into captivity I was not singled out in any way from among the other prisoners of war. I was fed and I was supplied in exactly the same way as all the others. I was one of the general crowd and the general column of the prisoners of war. The German Command made no distinction in the first days of captivity.
DR. LATERNSER: But you will have to admit that there were certain difficulties connected with food supplies which would arise if quite unexpectedly a column, such as yours, 5,000 men strong, had to be fed by rapidly advancing troops.
KIVELISHA: Even if the German Command had been faced with this particular difficulty, the problem could always have been solved by allowing the prisoners to accept the food products which the peaceful population, the Soviet citizens, were offering them.
DR. LATERNSER: We shall talk about that immediately. You say you were in a column of 5,000 prisoners. Can you tell me how strong the guard was, the German guard, under whom this column of 5,000 marched?
KIVELISHA: I cannot state the exact figures. But there were a great many German machine gunners. The column was too drawn out in length and I am unable to state the figure.
DR. LATERNSER: I understand that you cannot give the exact figures. But can you describe to the Tribunal how great the distance was between individual guards marching alongside the column?
KIVELISHA: The distance would be as follows: two or three soldiers, walking in a row, would march approximately five or six steps behind a second row of the same number.
DR. LATERNSER: Thus, every 50 to 60 meters, on either side of the column, or perhaps only on one side of the column, German troops marched in groups of two and three soldiers, as you say, or have I not understood you correctly?
KIVELISHA: Not 50 to 60 meters; 5 to 6.
DR. LATERNSER: Were the guards elderly men or were there younger soldiers among them?
KIVELISHA: They were soldiers of the German Army. They were of every age.
DR.LATERNSER: Were the Russian prisoner-of-war columns informed, before they started, that they would be shot if they left the ranks?
KIVELISHA: I have already said, and I repeat once again, there were no warnings.
DR. LATERNSER: Not even when the column set off?
KIVELISHA: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps it would be a good time to break off till 2 o'clock. [The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.] Afternoon Session
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has made its decision upon the witnesses and documents to be called and produced on behalf of the first four defendants and that decision will be communicated as soon as possible this afternoon to counsel for those defendants and will also be posted in the Defendants' Information Center. Secondly, an application was made some time ago by the Chief Prosecutor for France with reference to the calling of two additional witnesses. The Tribunal would wish that if it is desired to call any witnesses after closing the case on behalf of any of the chief prosecutors, that a written application should be made to the Tribunal for the calling of such witnesses, and the Tribunal also desires me to draw the attention of Counsel for the Prosecution and Counsel for the Defense to the terms of Article 24, Subsection (e). which refers to rebutting evidence. In the event of Counsel for the Prosecution or Counsel for the Defense wishing to call rebutting evidence when the proper time comes, after the case for the Prosecution and the Defense has been closed, such application to call rebutting evidence must be made to the Tribunal in writing.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I wonder if the Tribunal would allow me to say something on a matter on which I promised to get information yesterday. Your Lordship will remember that Dr. Horn asked for a withdrawn edition of the Daily Telegraph of the 31st of August 1939, and I promised the Tribunal that I should make inquiries. I had a telegram from the Daily Telegraph , which I received this morning, and it says: "No edition of the Daily Telegraph withdrawn on 31 August 1939 or any other day thereabouts. The Telegraph of the 31st gave a brief paragraph saying meeting Henderson-Ribbentrop had taken place but without details. "On 1st September carried summary of Germany's 16 points for Poland as broadcast by the German radio. Actual text of the note did not appear until September 2, when extracted from the Foreign Office White Paper of all relevant documents." I thought it was only right, as I had promised to get the information, that I should put it before the Tribunal, and I propose to send a copy of that to Dr. Horn.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Sir David. I think that may necessitate a slight variation in the order which the Tribunal was proposing to make.
DR. NELTE: Regarding the question of Generals Halder and Warlimont as witnesses, Mr. President, permit me to ask you to answer one question; namely, to tell me if the Court has decided yet that the Generals Halder and Warlimont, whom I have named as witnesses, and whose relevancy has been admitted by the Prosecution, will be approved as witnesses for Keitel so that we can count with certainty on their appearing in the proceedings.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. What I meant to state this morning was that the Defense Counsel should decide whether they wanted to have them to cross-examine them now or call them as witnesses on behalf of one or other of the defendants, and therefore that was a decision that the Defense Counsel would be able to call them on behalf of one of the defendants if they determined to do so. Therefore they can be called for Keitel, unless, of course, they were called before. If the Defendant Goering wanted to call them then they would have to be examined on behalf of Keitel when they were called for Goering, because of the fundamental rule that a witness is only to be called once.
DR. NELTE: Very well. I wish to state that the Defense Counsel who are interested in the interrogation of Generals Halder and Warlimont are agreed that these generals should be called in the course of the presentation of evidence by the Defense.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. Colonel Smirnov ... I beg your pardon. Dr. Laternser.
DR. LATERNSER: I have a few more questions to ask this witness. Witness, you said this morning that for rest during their march to the camp the four or five thousand Russian prisoners were accommodated in a stable. Was this stable roofed?
KIVELISHA: It was the usual type of country cow shed, and since the farm had previously been evacuated, the shed had not been cleaned for a very long time and was in a state of complete neglect. And if we add to this state of neglect the fact that it had been pouring with rain all that day, we must also add that it was half-swamped in soft mud. It was quite impossible to settle down in the stables and barns since they were filled with left-over manure, so that all the people stayed out of doors.
DR. LATERNSER: Was it possible in this case to accommodate these prisoners in a better way?
KIVELISHA: It is very difficult for me to answer that question, for I am not at all acquainted with the locality where I was captured, and, on the other hand, we were brought to this village late at night and I do not know whether there were more convenient places where the prisoners could have been quartered.
DR. LATERNSER: That is to say, on this evening when you entered this village, you yourself saw no possibility for better accommodations?
KIVELISHA: It is not because I did not see better quarters, but because it was night and I could not therefore observe the village, although it was a rather large village and it seems to me that there was a sufficient number of large houses where 5,000 to 6,000 people might have easily been billeted more conveniently for the night.
DR. LATERNSER: I shall have one last question. You said that in the prisoner camp you were not employed in your capacity as a physician. Did the German prisoner-of-war administration ever place any medical supplies at your disposal so that you could treat your sick comrades?
KIVELISHA: In the first stages, when we were being evacuated step by step from one camp to another, we received no medical equipment at all from the Germans; but subsequently when I was in a stationary camp, Stalag 305, medical equipment was issued, though never in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements of all the wounded.
DR. LATERNSER: I have no further questions.
HERR LUDWIG BABEL (Counsel for the SS and the SD): I have only one question. The witness has stated that the stable was evacuated. What do you mean by that term?
KIVELISHA: By that I mean that all the cattle in the stable had been driven off beyond the zone of military operations.
HERR BABEL: By whom was this done?
KIVELISHA: It was done by the citizens of the village we had entered and who had retreated eastwards, together with Red Army units who had not been surrounded as we were.
HERR BABEL: That is to say, the cattle had been brought back to Russian territory?
KIVELISHA: From this village, yes.
HERR BABEL: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any other defendants' counsel wish to ask questions? Witness, were any SS units used for guarding the prisoners of war whilst you were prisoner of war?
KIVELISHA: In the camp of Rakovo, in the district of the town of Proskurov, where I was interned most of the time, the convoying of labor Kommandos was carried out by young German soldiers who, at that time, were named the SS.
THE PRESIDENT: Was that a stationary camp?
KIVELISHA: Yes, it was a stationary camp.
THE PRESIDENT: But SS units were not used to guard you until you got to that stationary camp?
KIVELISHA: I cannot say anything definite on the subject, since I did not know the distinctive insignia of the German Army.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, do you want to ask anything in re-examination?
MR.COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have no further questions to ask the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness can retire. [The witness left the stand.]
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: May I continue, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I request the Tribunal to accept as one of the proofs of the Hitlerite crimes perpetrated in the prisoner-of-war camps certain documents which I should like to submit to the Tribunal at the request of our honorable British colleagues. The Soviet Prosecution does this all the more readily in that it considers this documentation of the British Prosecution of essential importance in establishing the criminal contravention by the major Hitlerite war criminals of the laws and customs of war accepted by all civilized nations for the treatment of prisoners of war. I would ask the Tribunal to add to the documentation of the Trial the documents of the British Delegation, which I have presented as Exhibit Number USSR-413 (Document Number UK-48) regarding the cruel murder of 50 prisoners of war, officers of the Royal Air Force, who were captured while attempting to escape en masse from Stalag Luft III at Sagan and shot after their capture by the German criminals in the night of 24-25 March 1944. These documents consist of an official record of the Hitlerite crimes, signed by Brigadier Shapcott, representative of the British Armed Forces, and the attached minutes of the court of inquiry held in Sagan by order of the senior British officer in Stalag Lust III and forwarded to the protecting power: Included with these documents are the statements of the following Allied witnesses: Wing Commander Day, Flight Lieutenant Tonder, Flight Lieutenant Dowse, Flight Lieutenant Van Wymeersch, Flight Lieutenant Green, Flight Lieutenant Marshall, Flight Lieutenant Nelson, Flight Lieutenant Churchill, Lieutenant Neely, P.S. M. Hicks. The material evidence is also corroborated by statements taken from the following Germans: Generalmajor Westhoff, Oberregierungs- und Kriminalrat Wielen, Oberst Von Lindeiner.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: There is also a photostatic copy attached of the official list of those who perished, handed over by the German Foreign Office to the Swiss Diplomatic Mission in Berlin, and the report of the representative of the protecting power during his visit to Stalag Luft III on 5 June 1944. I shall briefly summarize the circumstances of this infamous crime of the Hitlerites by quoting from the report of Brigadier Shapcott. Your Honors will find the passage which I am about to quote on Page 163, Paragraph 2 of the document book. I begin: "On the night of 24-25 March 1944, 76 R.A.F. officers escaped from Stalag Luft III at Sagan in Silesia where they had been confined as prisoners of war. Of these, 15 were recaptured and returned to the camp, 3 escaped altogether, 8 were detained by the Gestapo after recapture. Of the fate of the remaining 50 officers the following information was given by the German authorities...." The following information was given by the German authorities who stated that these 50 officers were shot, allegedly while attempting to escape. Actually this statement was the customary routine lie of the Hitlerites, since the very thorough investigation carried out by the British military authorities proved indubitably that the British R.A.F. officers had been vilely murdered after recapture by the German police. I submit evidence to this effect and quote the report presented by the British Prosecution. It was ascertained that this crime was committed by order of Goering and Keitel. The passage which I wish to submit to the Tribunal is on Page 168 of the document book, Russian text.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Nelte?
DR. NELTE: The Tribunal will recall that the question of hearing the witness Major General Westhoff has already played a role here once before. The Prosecution at the time -- I do not have the document here now -- submitted a report regarding the interrogation of Major General Westhoff; that is to say, the Tribunal, upon my objection, refused to have this document read in Court. I do not know whether, as the prosecutor is now speaking of the testimony of Major General Westhoff, it concerns the same document which the Tribunal previously refused to admit or whether it concerns a new document which I do not know as yet. I draw your attention to the fact that General Westhoff is here in person; in other words, be called as a witness on this question.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Permit me to say, Mr. President . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, you have heard what Dr. Nelte said. As I understood it -- I am not sure if I got the name right -- but he referred to General Westhoff's evidence which has been tendered, and which had been rejected because the Tribunal thought that if that evidence was to be given, General Westhoff ought to be called. Is it right that the document you are putting in has got nothing to do with General Westhoff at all, has it?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Westhoff is mentioned in only one part of the official British report.
THE PRESIDENT: But it is not a report made by General Westhoff, is it?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That is perfectly correct. I am now submitting an official British report to the Tribunal. Only one passage in the text of the official British report mentions Major General Westhoff, but this mention has nothing to do with the interrogatory of Major General Westhoff which will be brought up later.
MR. G. D. ROBERTS (Leading Counsel for the United Kingdom): My Lord, perhaps I might assist in this matter -- because I am partly responsible for that report -- with the kind indulgence of my learned friend, my Russian colleague. My Lord, the document which is now about to be read is a British official government report under Article 21 of the Charter, and the original is properly so certified. My Lord, it is quite true that General Westhoff's name is mentioned in the report, but it is quite a different document to the document which my French colleagues tendered and which the Tribunal rejected in evidence. It is an official government report.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That is just what I have been saying, Your Honor. This is an official report of the British Government.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, Colonel Smirnov. Mr. Roberts -- I just wish to speak to Mr. Roberts, Dr. Nelte --  why do you say that it is an official government report so as to come within Article 21 of the Charter?
MR. ROBERTS: Because the original has been handed in and it has been certified by Brigadier General Shapcott of the Military Department of the Judge Advocate General's office. I think you have the original.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have the original. Mr. Roberts, to whom was it made, this report?
MR.ROBERTS: My Lord, it was made in connection with the collection of evidence for this Tribunal. As Your Lordship sees, it is headed, German War Crimes. Report on the Responsibility for the Killing of 50 R.A.F. Officers," and then it starts to say -- then it states the sources on which the material has been based. Your Lordship will see on the last page of the report the appendix, "Material upon which the foregoing report is based": "1. Proceedings of Court of Inquiry held at Sagan.... 2. Statements of the following Allied witnesses.... 3. Statements taken from the following German.... 4. Photostat copy of the official list of dead, transmitted by the German Foreign Office to the Swiss Legation.... 5. Report of the Representative of the Protecting Power on his visit to Stalag Luft III on 5th June 1944."
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Mr. Roberts, was this made for the Tribunal or for the War Crimes Commission?
MR. ROBERTS: It was made for this Trial.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Made for this Trial?
MR. ROBERTS: For this Trial.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): By a general in the Army?
MR. ROBERTS: Yes, My Lord.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And he reported to whom?
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, it was then submitted to the British Delegation for this Trial.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You mean the Prosecution?
MR. ROBERTS: Yes, My Lord.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So this is the report of a British general made to the British Prosecution?
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I would not quite, with respect, accept the phrase "report of a British general." I would say "a report of a government department." It is signed and certified by a British general.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr.Biddle): Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I submit most respectfully that My Lords may exactly read in Article 21: "The Tribunal shall take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United Nations.... " My Lord, I submit that this is clearly an official governmental document, a report made by a department of the Army in London, a government department, for the purpose of this Trial.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Then any evidence that was collected and sent in by the government will be official evidence.
MR. ROBERTS: I think that is so under Article 21, that is, as I read it and as I respectfully submit to Your Lordship.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to add anything, Dr. Nelte?
DR. NELTE: Yes, I should like to make a few further remarks. It is, in other words, a report which was drawn up on the basis of testimony by witnesses, among whom, as I understand, was also Major General Westhoff. I do not challenge the official character of this document, or that you can and must accept it as evidence under the terms of the Charter. But it seems to me that another question is involved here, namely, the question of better evidence. If a witness, who is at the disposal of the Court, could be eliminated by including his testimony in an official report, then the taking of evidence would not comply with the Tribunal's desire that it should represent the best method to discover the truth. The witness is at your disposal; the report does not contain literally what he said, but simply a conclusion the accuracy of which is subject to doubt, whereas it need not remain in doubt. But I believe the Defense must also have an opportunity in their turn, to hear and examine a witness, if it is as easily possible as in this case.
THE PRESIDENT: But Dr. Nelte, supposing that one of the witnesses who had been examined by one of the committees set up by the government had not made a report to the government at all, but an affidavit or something of that sort; and that had been offered to the Court and the witness had been available, the Court might very possibly have refused to entertain that affidavit or report. But if that report was the foundation for a government report or for a government official document, then, by Article 21, the Tribunal is directed to entertain such a report. Therefore, the fact that the Tribunal has already said that they wouldn't have some private affidavit or report of General Westhoff unless General Westhoff were called, is not relevant at all. It is a question whether they ought to entertain a report which you admit comes within Article 21.
DR. NELTE: I do not doubt that Your Lordship's view is correct. I should merely like to bring up the question whether, when one has two different types of evidence, namely, the report and the possibility of examining a witness, it should not be taken into consideration to question the witness, not in order to correct the official report, but in order to clarify what the witness actually said, because from the report we cannot know what he actually said. This question is, as you will understand, of tremendous importance for the Defendant Keitel, who allegedly issued an order to shoot the escaped fliers and if a witness who could clarify this question is available, this witness should be heard instead of an official report which already actually contains an evaluation.
THE PRESIDENT: But in the first place this report does not proceed only or even substantially upon the evidence of General Westhoff. There are a number of other origins of the report, and the second thing is that the whole object of Article 21 was to make government reports admissible and not to necessitate the calling of the witnesses upon whose evidence they proceeded.
DR. NELTE: The other witnesses were interrogated on all other matters, namely, the shooting . . . The other witnesses who were mentioned were questioned on other facts. On the question of whether Keitel issued such an order at all, General Westhoff is the only one mentioned in the report.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you repeat that? I do not have my earphones on.