dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. THOMA: Did this law also apply to Estonia and Lithuania?
RIECKE: The law applied in a similar manner also to Estonia and Lithuania.
DR. THOMA: Do you know about a statement of Darre's to the effect that the local small farmers should be removed from their property and be proletarianized?
RIECKE: I do not remember any such statement.
DR. THOMA: Do you know about the Society for the Administration of the Eastern Territory?
RIECKE: There were two societies by that name. I assume that the one you are referring to was the one founded in order to take care of the state-owned property and the plants which were shown to have been formed during the Russian occupation in the Baltic provinces, and which were still left after the return to private ownership. In the former Russian territories of the so-called Reich Commission, the MTS organization also took care of these areas.
DR. THOMA: What was the attitude of Rosenberg toward the various measures, such as labor recruitment, delivery of foodstuffs, et cetera ?
RIECKE: Rosenberg could not escape the orders given by the Fuehrer. Yet he always advocated that these measures be carried out without coercion against the population, and that they be coordinated with each other.
DR. THOMA: Who took care of the Eastern Workers in the Reich?
RIECKE: To my knowledge the Labor Administration, through its labor offices.
DR. THOMA: How were the Eastern Workers quartered in the country in the Reich? Do you know anything about it?
RIECKE: The provisioning and quartering of the Eastern Workers in the country in the Reich were quite satisfactory on the whole. I received reports directly by way of the offices of the Reich Food Estate.
DR. THOMA: Can you tell us something about Rosenberg's general attitude toward the Eastern people?
RIECKE: As I have said before, Rosenberg personally wanted to get the Eastern people to cooperate. This was true especially in the matter of cultivating and maintaining their cultural life. For instance, Rosenberg, as far as I know, always intervened for the reopening of the colleges and special schools.
DR. THOMA: Did Rosenberg have any restrictions in this sphere? Did he have to oppose other points of view to attain this goal?
RIECKE: Strong forces were at work counteracting Rosenberg's efforts; and especially in the Fuehrer's headquarters there were Bormann and Himmler, whose opinions were strongly supported by Reich Commissioner Koch, and who in turn was supported by Bormann and Himmler in his work. That led to the fact that a large proportion of the measures which Rosenberg had planned, especially in the Ukraine, were sabotaged by Koch.
DR. THOMA: Now one last question: What do you know about the concentration camps and about the treatment of the inmates in protective custody?
RIECKE: I, of course, knew of the existence of concentration camps but not their number and what happened in them. During the years of 1933 and 1934 various representations were made about individual cases of maltreatment. Later, persons who visited concentration camps turned in definite, positive reports. In the last days of April of last year, near Berlin, I met inmates of concentration camps being marched to the rear. Conditions were so terrible that I immediately saw Himmler and asked him not to let these people go on marching but to turn them over to the enemy. That discussion took place in the presence of Field Marshal Keitel. Himmler unfortunately gave only an evasive answer.
DR. THOMA: There is one more question that just came to my mind. In addition to providing food for the Armed Forces, were measures taken in the Occupied Eastern Territories to get foodstuffs for the German people?
RIECKE: About two-thirds of the supplies of foodstuffs from the Occupied Eastern Territories went directly to the Armed Forces. The remaining third was shipped to Germany, and we always considered it as compensatory for the feeding of the foreign workers, whose number was increasing continuously.
DR. THOMA: I have no more questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the defendants' counsel wish to ask any questions?
DR. SEIDL: Witness, you were State Secretary in the Reich Ministry for Food and Agriculture; is that correct?
RIECKE: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: Is it correct that the Chief of the Main Department for Food and Agriculture in the Government General was frequently in Berlin in order to try to fix quotas there which would be bearable to the population?
RIECKE: As I recall, he several times expressed that opinion during the regular negotiations which took place with the Government General.
DR. SEIDL: According to your own observations, what was the food situation of the population of the Government General?
RIECKE: According to my own observations and the reports which I received, the rations which had been fixed were far lower than in the Reich, but considerable compensation was achieved through both the black market and the open market.
DR. SEIDL: Is it correct that every effort was made by the administration of the Government General to increase agricultural production?
RIECKE: Considerable efforts were made by the Government General to promote agriculture; and one can even say that the entire remaining industry, insofar as it was not used for armament, worked exclusively for the production of food. Furthermore, fertilizer was shipped from the Reich, although only in limited quantities, as well as machinery and equipment, in accordance with the program for the Eastern territory.
DR. SEIDL: What percentage of the total German food supply did the occupied countries deliver?
RIECKE: According to the calculations which were made independently by our Ministry, the deliveries from occupied territories in 1942 and 1943 amounted to about 15 percent of the total food supply of Germany, during the other years around 10 percent, usually less.
DR. SEIDL: Now one last question: The Soviet Prosecution have submitted a document, Document USSR-170. It deals with a meeting of the chiefs of the German offices in the occupied territories which took place on 6 August 1942 under the chairmanship of the Reich Marshal. I will have this document handed to you, and I want you to tell me whether the description given in that document correctly characterizes the relations between Germany and the occupied territories. You were present at that meeting yourself. [The document was submitted to the witness.]
RIECKE: The document represents the minutes of the meeting in which I took part. First, I have to say that the document-that is to say, the minutes-principally contains the speech of the Reich Marshal, and does not indicate the actual relations between Germany and the occupied territories with regard to the food situation. The demands which Goering made in this meeting were so high that they could not even be taken seriously. It was also clear to us, engaged in the food sector, that in the long run we could never achieve anything by force. The additional demands which Goering made in that meeting were actually never fulfilled. I do not think that Goering himself believed that these quotas could be fulfilled. As far as I know, Goering's additional demands were never submitted at all to France; Belgium in spite of a prohibition received grain; and Czechoslovakia got fats in spite of another prohibition. On the day before that meeting, there had been a conference of the Gauleiter which-as well as I can remember-was dominated by the increasing air attacks in the West and the augmenting difficulties, especially for the population, resulting therefrom. The western Gauleiter were of the opinion that the food supply for Germany was becoming insufficient in view of the increasing burdens for the population, but that, on the other hand, a large part of the occupied territories was still enjoying a surplus. The Reich Ministry for Food and Agriculture and the representatives of the occupied territories themselves were in a certain sense accused of not demanding and delivering enough from the occupied territories. Goering followed up these demands; and, due to his disposition and his temperament, this led to the strong exaggerations contained in the minutes and in this document.
DR. SEIDL: I have no more questions.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, how were foreign workers fed in Germany?
RIECKE: All groups of foreign workers, with the exception of the Eastern Workers, received the same rations as the German population.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what about the supplies for the Eastern Workers?
RIECKE: For certain items the Eastern Workers received less than the others; and in the case of bread and potatoes, higher rations.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was the food supply such that the state of health of the workers was endangered?
RIECKE: That question cannot be answered in a clearcut fashion. It must be considered in connection with the performance demanded of the workers. For normal work these rations should have been entirely sufficient.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did Sauckel intervene especially for better nutrition of these workers?
RIECKE: As far as I know, Sauckel appealed several times to my minister on behalf of a better supply of food, whereupon Backe always answered with the counter demand that no additional workers should be brought to Germany. Backe repeatedly suggested that the number of workers be limited and that they be supplied with better food instead.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no more questions.
DR. STEINBAUER: Witness, in your capacity as State Secretary for Agriculture, did you not also go to Holland at the end of 1944 or the beginning of 1945?
RIECKE: Yes; at that time I was in the Netherlands.
DR. STEINBAUER: On that occasion, was it not the case there that the Wehrmacht offices and the Police raised serious complaints about sabotage of Dutch agriculture, particularly about the responsible government agencies in Holland?
RIECKE: I do not remember a conversation of that kind.
DR. STEINBAUER: Do you know that the Defendant Seyss-Inquart intervened for the reduction of food exports from Holland to Germany?
RIECKE: Yes, on various occasions, and also in that meeting which this document describes.
DR. STEINBAUER: And also, in spite of complaints, that he left the Dutch officials in the Food Department?
RIECKE: Yes, that is the case.
DR. STEINBAUER: That is all.
DR. HANS FLACHSNER: (Counsel for Defendant Speer): Mr. President, may I put several questions to the witness? [Turning to the witness] Witness, could you give me information about the following questions? Did the inmates of concentration camps who worked in the armament industry get the same supplementary rations for heavy and very heavy labor as the other workers?
RIECKE: During the time when I was charged with these problems, it was decided to give all prisoners, including concentration camp inmates, the same rations as the rest of the population, if they were working. Therefore, they should have received the same rations.
DR. FLACHSNER: Was the Defendant Speer, or the Ministry under his direction, competent for the orderly maintenance of the rations in the plants insofar as the latter-the plants-were in charge of the food supply?
RIECKE: No, Speer's Ministry was not competent in these matters. As far as delivery upon demand was concerned, the food offices were competent. The distribution of delivered foodstuffs in the plants, however, was the affair of the camp or plant administrations.
DR. FLACHSNER: And one further question: What measures had Speer taken in order to prevent a general food catastrophe which would have affected the millions of foreign workers in Germany in an equal manner?
RIECKE: Beginning in December 1944, Speer purposely subordinated armament tasks to the problem of nutrition with the idea in mind of a changeover to a new regime, a new administration, an occupying power. From this time on , Speer gave food transport priority over armament transport. He saw to it that seed for the, spring tillage was distributed with the transportation means at his disposal. Speer emphatically advocated reconstructing food processing plants damaged by air attack even before armament plants. And above all, during that last phase, Speer helped us prevent the senseless destruction of food processing plants, against the instructions issued by Hitler. He did this with complete self-abnegation and without consideration for any possible consequences.
DR. FLACHSNER: Thank you.
DR. LATERNSER: Witness, did you participate in the Western campaign?
RIECKE: Yes.
DR. LATERNSER: In what capacity?
RIECKE: As commander of a battalion in the field.
DR. LATERNSER: During the Western campaign, did you receive any dubious orders-I mean to say, orders which were in violation of international law?
RIECKE: I received no such orders.
DR. LATERNSER: Did you have any reason to believe, or did you establish, that looting was tolerated by higher military authorities?
RIECKE: No. On the contrary, looting was most severely punished.
DR. LATERNSER: Later you were also in the East, but-as I have heard not as a soldier. Could you look into the operational areas there, as well as the regions governed by the commissions?
RIECKE: Both were open to my observations.
DR. LATERNSER: What was the treatment of the local population by the German soldiers?
RIECKE: Taken as a whole it can be said that, especially in the Ukraine, the treatment of the civilian population in the army's sector-in the operational area-was better than elsewhere; consideration was shown for the necessities of the civilian administrative sector.
DR. LATERNSER: And what do you think is the reason for that difference?
RIECKE: I attribute it to a different basic attitude of the soldier who was free of political tendencies and also to the fact that the troops, of course, wanted to have peace and quiet in the rear areas.
THE PRESIDENT: Do the Prosecution want to cross-examine?
MR. DODD: I can be through in 2 minutes, if Your Honor please. [Turning to the witness.] Were you a member of the Nazi Party?
RIECKE: Yes.
MR. DODD: When did you join?
RIECKE: In 1925.
MR. DODD: 1925?
RIECKE: Yes.
MR. DODD: You were also a member of the SA?
RIECKE: Yes.
MR. DODD: What rank did you hold in the SA?
RIECKE: My last rank was Gruppenfuehrer of the SA.
MR. DODD: Previously, you were an SA Sturmfuehrer, were you not?
RIECKE: In 1930, yes.
MR. DODD: When did you become an SS Gruppenfuehrer?
RIECKE: In October 1944.
MR. DODD: That is all. I have no other questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you any questions to ask in reexamination?
DR. THOMA: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that concludes your case in behalf of the Defendant Rosenberg, does it not?
DR. THOMA: Mr. President, I should like to state that the Document Rosenberg-l9, which General Rudenko referred to, was not submitted to the Tribunal as an exhibit by me. Furthermore, I should like to inform the Tribunal that a number of affidavits, which have been approved, have not as yet been received.
THE PRESIDENT: You can mention them later, of course.
DR. THOMA: I should further like to make the request that my document book Number 1 be not accepted in evidence but considered the same as before, that is, as having general probative value according to the decision of 8 March 1946; therefore, not as evidence, not as a matter of proof, but just as argument. I assume that it had been approved in this sense previously, and that it was only rejected as evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: I anticipate that we shall not interfere in your argument.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Mr. President, I should like to give an explanation-that is, about the fact that Document Rosenberg-l9 represents a letter from Riecke addressed to Rosenberg, dated 12 March 1943. This document was submitted by the defendant's counsel, Dr. Thoma. It is found in the Rosenberg Document Book Number 2, Page 42, and has been translated into all four languages. It is in the possession of all the prosecutors and is also in the document book which has been submitted to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has ruled to accept this document from the Defense.
THE PRESIDENT: General Raginsky, the position is this: That a document does not go into evidence unless it is offered in evidence. Dr. Thoma has not offered this document in evidence, and I understand that the Soviet Prosecution has not offered it in evidence. If you want to offer it in evidence, and the document is an authentic document-which I suppose it is-you can offer it in evidence.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: We did not offer it as evidence, only because we thought that it was already contained in the document book presented by the Defense; and, therefore, we had no need to present it again. If the defendant's counsel, Thoma, refuses to present it, then we shall do so.
THE PRESIDENT: You are wrong in assuming this. You see, documents do not go into evidence unless they are offered in evidence. The fact that they are in the books does not mean that they are in evidence; therefore, if you want to offer it in evidence, you must do so.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: In that case, Mr. President, we are going to offer it in evidence now.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; you will give it a USSR number.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Yes, we are going to give it a USSR exhibit number and, with your permission, will offer it in evidence tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, we will proceed to deal with the supplementary applications. The witness can retire.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases, the first application is that of Dr. Seidl's with regard to two witnesses. First of all witness Hilger, who was previously granted as a witness for the Defendant Von Ribbentrop but withdrawn by counsel on the 2nd of April. I believe that the witness is in the United States and that there is a report that he is too ill to travel. But apart from finis, My Lord, the purpose of the witness is to give evidence as to the discussions and treaty negotiations which took place in the Kremlin at Moscow before the German-Soviet agreement of the 23rd of August 1939; and the allegation states the conclusion of the alleged secret agreement dealt with in the affidavit of the witness Gaus. My Lord, the other application is for a witness Von Weizsacker, who is going to deal with the same point. The Prosecution, of course, loyally accept the decision of the Tribunal on the admissibility of the Gaus affidavit, but they respectfully submit that that does not affect this point. What is desired is to call witnesses as to the course of the negotiations before these treaties-before an agreement was arrived at in respect to these treaties-and that is a point which we have had several times; and, of course, while all circumstances have a slight difference, the Tribunal have-as far as I know-ruled universally up to now that they will not go into antecedent negotiations which have resulted in agreements. There is also the position that, of course, Dr. Seidl has put in the Gaus affidavit, and he has had his opportunity to examine the Defendant Von Ribbentrop; and the Prosecution respectfully submit that to call two secondary witnesses-without any disrespect to their position in the German Foreign Office, they are witnesses of a secondary importance compared with the Defendant Von Ribbentrop-to discuss these negotiations seems to the Prosecution to be going into irrelevant matter and entirely unnecessary for the purposes of this case.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I confess I do not myself appreciate any special relevance that these witnesses could have to the case of Hess, but I do not put it so strongly on that ground; I put it on the ground which I have just outlined to the Tribunal. With regard to the third application of Dr. Seidl, I am not quite sure whether he means that he wants the Prosecution to provide him with an original or certified copy of the secret agreement, or whether he desires to tender a copy himself. But with regard to that, again the Prosecution take the line that that point-which, after all, is only one tiny corner of one aspect of the case-is sufficiently covered by the evidence which has already been brought out before the Tribunal from the affidavit of Ambassador Gaus and the evidence of the Defendant Ribbentrop. That is the position of the Prosecution with regard to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Seidl?
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, the affidavit of the Ambassador Dr. Gaus, which has been accepted by the Tribunal as Exhibit Hess-16, describes only a part of the negotiations. Ambassador Dr. Gaus was not present at the negotiations which preceded the conclusion of the pacts. I have, therefore, made the additional application to call Embassy Counsellor Hilger as a witness after his having already been approved as a witness for the Defendant Von Ribbentrop. I have, furthermore, requested that the Tribunal procure the text of that secret supplementary appendix. I have to admit, however, that this request no longer has the importance it had at the time it was made. In the meantime we have received a copy of that secret supplementary appendix. Furthermore, I have a copy of the secret appendix to the German-Soviet border pact of 28 September 1939; and I have an affidavit by Ambassador Dr. Gaus of 1 April of this year certifying that these copies are identical with the text of the secret agreements drafted on 23 August and 28 September 1939.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, have you any objection to that document being produced for the consideration of the Tribunal?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Not at all, My Lord. As I say, the Tribunal have considered our objection on relevance, and we have lost on it; and, therefore, it is not really open to me to argue any question of the relevance of the document in view of the decision of the Tribunal. The only point that I make is that if Dr. Seidl produces an alleged copy of the treaty, supported by an affidavit of Ambassador Gaus, then it immensely strengthens my argument, I submit, against him being allowed to call the witness.
COL. POKROVSKY: The Soviet Prosecution, on the question which is now being discussed by the Tribunal, have submitted today a document to the General Secretariat of the International Military Tribunal. If this document is already in your possession, then I need not talk about our position here; but, if you find it necessary, Your Honors, I am going to set it forth here. We object on the ground of considerations, which are set forth in this document signed by General Rudenko.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you presenting an argument or a document of some sort?
COL. POKROVSKY: No, I am not going to argue about it nor return to this question if you have this document.
THE PRESIDENT: You misunderstood me. You mentioned a document which you asserted was in the possession of the Tribunal. I am not aware that we have any document from the Soviet Prosecution. It may be that it has been received; and, if so, we will consider it of course. What I wanted to know is whether it was an argument or an original document of some sort.
COL. POKROVSKY: The document deals with the official answer of the Soviet Prosecution on the question as to whether we consider it necessary to grant the request of Dr. Seidl regarding a group of questions connected with the German-Soviet Pact of 1939.
THE PRESIDENT: We will consider the document.
COL. POKROVSKY: You think it would be possible to be content with just the document which is in your possession now?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, certainly-unless you wish to say anything. We will consider the document.
COL. POKROVSKY: There is going to be no further information regarding it. Our position has been defined in detail in this document signed by General Rudenko; and, if you have this document before you now, I have nothing more to add regarding it.