dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
THE PRESIDENT: No.
DR. LATERNSER: But that is evidence, Mr. President, which I brought out before the Commission, and from which I now want to read a short quotation.
THE PRESIDENT: But, you see, that comes as argument; it isn't a mere comment. We want to confine it to a mere comment so that you may explain your evidence. Once you begin to comment upon the evidence of the Prosecution, in the opinion of the Tribunal it becomes argument. Well, if you are short you may refer to this passage; it is suggested that it is your evidence.
DR. LATERNSER: It is very brief. "Question: 'Had you no misgivings in using immediately in your testimony, to which you have sworn, documents which had only just been given to you' "Answer: 'Dr. Laternser; what do you mean by 4tusing"' "Question: 'You made this report the subject of your testimony. ' "Answer: 'Since I was under oath, I of course had to comment =on it.1 With this quotation I merely want to prove that the knowledge of the witness Schellenberg on this point was not his own knowledge. The witness, in his Affidavit Number 1.2, then says that he became convinced that in the Wagner-Heydrich conference the future activity of the Einsatzgruppen, also the planned mass-exterminations, were presumably discussed and decided upon. With regard to this point I want to refer to the result of the cross-examination. It is quite clearly shown there that the witness Schellenberg's assumption that General Wagner and Heydrich in this discussion in 1941 had spoken of planned mass-exterminations was formed only in the year 1945. The witness Schellenberg then says that in June 1941 he attended an intelligence (Ic) conference which lasted several days, but that he was present only at one of these conference sessions. He says in his affidavit that presumably in the following sessions the proposed mass-exterminations were made known to the intelligence officers, and he adds the further assumption that the commanders-in-chief were informed of the planned mass-exterminations through these presumably informed intelligence officers. I will now prove to the Court that both these assumptions which Schellenberg expressed in testifying for the Prosecution are contrary to the truth. I present to the Court Affidavits Number 701 and 701-a, which are available in translation. In Affidavit 701 a participant at this intelligence conference, General Von Gersdorff, says that planned mass exterminations were not mentioned and the same fact is affirmed in General Kleikamp's statement, which is also given under oath.
DR. LATERNSER: In cross-examination I showed one of these affidavits to Schellenberg and I questioned him as follows. This is one of the few quotations which I should like to make because of its importance.
THE PRESIDENT: What is that you wanted to refer to? Cross-examination before the Court?
DR. LATERNSER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Before the Tribunal or what?
DR. LATERNSER: Before the Commission,- Mr. President. Very well, I shall dispense with reading it, Mr. President. I only refer the Court to the evidence taken before the Commission, which has a special bearing on this point. The affidavit of General R6ttiger, Exhibit USA-560, can no longer, in view of the cross-examination before the Commission, be used by the Prosecution in the sense in which it was desired to use it. I shall not quote from it, although I would very much like to do so. In regard to the testimony of SS Fuehrer Rode, Affidavit Number 18, Exhibit USA-563, whom I unfortunately could not cross-examine, I point out that the witness himself begins- with the words "As far as I know, the Einsatzgruppen were completely subordinate As counter-evidence I have 52 affidavits on this point, which I have numbered 701 to 752. Affidavits 704, 705, 707, and 710 389, to 752 make it completely clear that there was never any subordination of the Einsatzgruppen. Affidavit 706, in addition, shows that Field Marshal Von Kleist, as commander of an army group, on a mere rumor that Jews were being murdered, immediately intervened, summoned the Higher SS and Police Leader and told him that he would not permit excesses against the Jews. This SS Fuehrer assured him that no excesses against the Jews were taking place, and that he had no orders to that effect. I refer, the Court also to Affidavit Number 709 which shows that General Freiherr Geyr von Schweppenburg immediately expelled from the operational area the leader of an Einsatzkommando who came to him and said that he (the Einsatzkommando chief) had been entrusted with the settling of political matters. I refer now to Affidavit 712-a by General Von Knobelsdorff. This general ordered the arrest 'of an SD Fi1hrer who wanted to have 50 to 60 persons shot because according to statements of confidential agents they were anti-German and intended to carry out acts of sabotage against the German troops. In this connection one piece of evidence seems of special importance, namely, Affidavit 1637, by General Kittel.
DR. LATERNSER: According to this affidavit, the mayor of Marinka, a racial German, was condemned to death by a court-martial and shot for crimes committed against a Jewess. How could the sentence on this man be explained if on the other hand the military leaders had ordered or tolerated the murder of many thousands of Jews? Finally, I refer to the testimony of all witnesses before' the Commission who testified that the Einsatzgruppen were not subordinate to the Wehrmacht. Now, the Commissar Order. On this subject the Prosecution submitted Affidavit 24, Exhibit USA-565, by Colonel Von Bonin, according to which this order was valid for all units of the Eastern Army. But the same affidavit shows that the commanding general of the 47th Panzer Corps, General Lemelsen...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, you are commenting upon evidence of the Prosecution. You are commenting upon Exhibit USA-565. At least, so I understand it.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, I believe I was misunderstood. I was only referring to a part of this document to which the Prosecution did not refer.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the affidavit is in evidence, I suppose, and it is evidence for the Prosecution, and you are commenting upon it and that is not what we want you to do. We want you to present your evidence. Go on, please.
DR. LATERNSER: I have more affidavits refuting the charge of the Prosecution with regard to the Commissar Order. On this point I turned over a total of 82 affidavits to the Commission: they are numbered 301 to 376. 1 would actually prefer to go into this point in more detail, but in order to save time, I shall not do so, but shall merely refer to special points to which I have to draw the Tribunal's attention. The testimony of General Warlimont in Affidavit 301-a shows the resistance against the order already at the time when it was being drawn up in the OKW and OKH, and the unsuccessful attempt to prevent its issue altogether. The Chief of the General Staff of the Army, Generaloberst Zeitzler, immediately protested to Hitler against this order, and it was thanks to his energetic protests that the order was rescinded. That is shown by Document 302-b. I ask that I may be allowed to quote one paragraph from this important document; it is 301-b.
THE PRESIDENT: 302-b, I thought. Whir-h is it?
DR. LATERNSER: I believe there is a mistake. In the list which you have, Mr. President, this document has been numbered 301-b.
THE PRESIDENT: I see
DR. LATERNSER: I quote: "After I took up my duties as Chief of the Army General Staff, I had a very serious and outspoken private conversation with Adolf Hitler about this order, and we viewed it from all sides. At the time Adolf Hitler was, as I remember, very much impressed by this discussion; that struck me, because otherwise he never changed his opinion in such matters -once it had been formed, and cut short any person who referred to such matters. For that reason I returned to this question several times, and I believe I succeeded in altering his opinion." Of the remaining affidavits I should like to refer particularly to Affidavit 315. This shows that General Hoeppner, the Commander-in-Chief of Panzer Group 4, acted in the same way in which the other commanders-in-chief acted, that is, he did not carry out the order. Then I refer to Affidavit 324-a, b, and c. With these documents I refute the Russian accusation on Page 1 of Document USSR-62. General Nel~ring expressly confirms in this affidavit that the order was not carried out in the area under his command. This testimony is corroborated by Affidavit Number 336.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on, Dr. Laternser.
DR. LATERNSER: The testimony of Major General Pape, in Affidavit 333, refutes with regard to the sphere of this division-it is the division which Field Marshal Model commanded at that time the Russian charge in USSR-62, which is based on the testimony of the soldier Trest. At the time when Field Marshal Model, who then of course held a lower rank, commanded this division the order was never carried out. The testimony of Admiral Schmundt in Affidavit Number 349 shows that the order was also opposed in the Navy, where it actually had only secondary importance. That the troops of Germany's allies did not treat Russian commissars contrary to international law either, is proved by the testimony of Lieutenant Colonel Fellmer with reference to the 13th Romanian Division and the sphere of the Italian expeditionary corps. He did not receive the order for transmittal, and he did not transmit it. I ask that the Tribunal study with especial care the summary of the list of affidavits on the Commissar Order, because it shows that the order was not carried out. I would certainly have been in a position to present further evidence on this point if I had had more time at my disposal.
THE PRESIDENT: You have already referred to 75, 1 think that perhaps is sufficient. I say you have already referred to 75 affidavits.
DR. LATERNSER: On partisan warfare: The Prosecution contends that, in the East in particular, this~ warfare was conducted in violation of international law. As evidence for these assertions, the Prosecution has referred to Affidavit Number 15 by General R6ttiger, Exhibit USA-559, to Affidavit Number 20 by General Heussinger, Exhibit USA-564, to Affidavit Number 17, Exhibit USA-562, and to the testimony of the witness Von dem Bach Zelewski. I cross-examined the witnesses Heussinger and Ruttiger before the Commission, and I ask the Tribunal to take notice of these transcripts. General Ruttiger, in his Affidavit Number 15, Exhibit USA-559, had raised an especially severe charge. I ask the Court's permission to quote a few passages of the examination before the Commission concerning this point. General R6ttiger had asserted that there existed orders of the High Command of the Army saying that the most severe measures were to be taken: 'furthermore, he asserted that the number of prisoners taken by the enemy ...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, we have got to consider, not these individual details, but we have got to consider the criminal character of the organization charged. First of all, whether it is an organization within the meaning*of the Charter, and secondly, whether it is a criminal organization. Here you wanted to draw our attention to individual details about partisan warfare in your cross-examination of the witness before the Commission. As I have pointed out, we have nearly 3,000 affidavits on your behalf to consider. If you would only give us the numbers of the affidavits which you say relate to a particular topic, then we shall know what relates to that topic and we shall be able to consider it.
DR. LATERNSER: But the Prosecution presented these details and they constitute a very grave charge; I want to prove the contrary . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, they did, and I have a reference to them. They were presented in the USA Affidavits 559 to 564, and I am perfectly well aware that you have cross-examined the witness. What I want to know is what affidavits you want to draw our attention to in reply to the case of the Prosecution on partisan warfare.
DR. LATERNSER: I draw the attention of the Court to the Commission transcript. The result of the cross-examination is that the affidavit of General Ruttiger presented by the Prosecution was completely refuted. As counter-evidence I refer to Affidavits 901 to 1043, and with regard to the suppression of the Warsaw uprising, to Affidavits 1501 to 1507. In detail, Statements 901 to 905 contain general statements on partisan warfare and on the suppression of partisan attacks in all theaters of war. Especially significant is Affidavit 903, by Field Marshal Von Weichs. Affidavits 906 to 931 give examples of the fighting methods of the partisans, while Affidavits 906 to 920 describe particularly dreadful atrocities committed by partisan bands. Affidavits 921 to 924 prove the partisans' actions in violation of international law, with regard to clothing, weapons, and other details. Affidavits 925 to 931 describe the extent of sabotage against railroads. That in spite of this the Germans fought according to the rules of international law, is proved by Affidavits 932 to 970. They show that the partisans were treated like prisoners of war. Affidavits 972 to 1032 show that there was no talk at the front about orders or intentions of the Supreme Command to use partisan warfare for the purpose of exterminating Jews or Slavs. Affidavits Number 1033 to 1040, and 1050, deal with the charge against the commander-in-chief of the 18th Army, that on 30 October 1942 he ordered that without discrimination all partisans were to be shot. In this connection I refer to the affidavit of Generaloberst Lindemann himself, who was the commander-in-chief of the 18th Army. This shows that such an order was never given. He describes the entry in the war diary of the Wehrmacht Operational Staff, Document Number 1786-PS, as incorrect. This affidavit is available in translation. Affidavit Number 1041 by General Von Mellenthin is a description of a large-scale operation against partisans.
DR. LATERNSER: In spite of an application of Army Group North to the OKH that the Army should be entrusted with this operation, the undertaking was carried out under Himmler's direction by General of Police Von dem BachZelewski. This affidavit serves to refute the testimony of Von dem Bach-Zelewski, in which he describes himself as nothing more than an agency for the collection of reports. To prove that this assertion of the witness Von dem. Bach-Zelewski is incorrect, I further refer to the testimony of the witness Heussinger before the Commission. Concerning the suppression of the Polish uprising in Warsaw, Affidavits 1501 to 1507, particularly the statement of General Guderian, 1501, state: (1) that General of Police Von dem Bach-Zelewski was entrusted with the task of suppressing the uprising; (2) that he was appointed to this task by Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler and was directly subordinate to him; (3) that he received his orders from him, that is, neither from the OKH, nor from Army Group Center, nor from the 9th Army; (4) that the majority of the troops employed in Warsaw consisted of SS and police troops, including the SS Brigade Kaminski; (5) that the particular atrocities against the population in Warsaw were committed by the SS Brigade Kaminski which consisted of Eastern nationals, and that this brigade was withdrawn from the battlefield to prevent further harm, and that its leaders were punished; (6) that the 9th Army took exemplary care of the population escaping from Warsaw. I will not quote any more details of this Affidavit 1501. As further proof that army agencies had nothing to do with the battle in Warsaw, I present the testimony of General Von Vormann, Affidavit 1504. Document USSR-128, on Pages 161 and 162 of my Document Book 2, also shows that the Wehrmacht agencies had nothing to do with the destruction of Warsaw which was apparently intended in 1944. I should like to -make one reference to partisan warfare in Italy.
DR. LATERNSER: The Prosecution presented two orders of the commander there, Field Marshal Kesselring, and considers them to be violations of international law. I refer to the testimony of Field Marshal Kesselring before the Commission. In this examination the witness emphasized that he had to take these temporary measures to suppress the uprising and that through taking them ~e succeeded in becoming master of the situation. This testimony of Field Marshal Kesselring is confirmed by Affidavit 3004 by General R8ttiger. Treatment of prisoners: The Prosecution charges the military leaders with planning, tolerating, or committing crimes against prisoners of war in all theaters of war. , The Russian Prosecution, in particular, enumerates specific atrocities, which I do not wish to mention in detail. Insofar as they affect the circle of persons whom I represent, I shall refute these accusations by affidavits. I refer first to Affidavit Number 1101 by Field Marshal Von Ktichler, which deals with the principles of the treatment of prisoners of war. Lieutenant Colonel Schaeder testifies in Affidavit 1102 that in November 1941 in Orsha he participated in a discussion between the Chief of the General Staff, Generaloberst Halder, and the chiefs -of the three army groups on the Eastern Front, at which the feeding of prisoners was also discussed. The Army Groups Center and South, which had just taken many prisoners, asked for permission to use army supplies to supplement the food allowances of the prisoners, and if necessary, even to reduce the rations of the German troops for this purpose. In this connection, I further refer to the Affidavits 1103, 1104, 1104-a, 1105-a to c, and 1106 to 1109, inclusive. A particularly important affidavit is Affidavit Number 3146 by General Gereke. General Gercke was, from August 1939 to the end of the war, Chief of Transport in the OICH. He states that the transports of Soviet prisoners of war were treated exactly Eke the transports of other prisoners of war.
DR. LATERNSER: The prisoners were transported together in closed freight cars, and orders deviating from this procedure were never issued. Open flat cars, as contended by the Prosecution, were used only very seldom and only on transports over short stretches, because there was a great scarcity of this type of car. In no case were transports in the winter sent intentionally in open cars in order to let the prisoners freeze to death. That is shown by Affidavit 3146. Now I come to the refutation of individual points of the Russian charges concerning the treatment of prisoners. On 13 February 1946 it was stated that corpses of Red Army men were found on the island of Chortiza on the Dnieper (Volume VII, Page 347). ,
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, the Tribunal has already said that it intends only to listen to you for half a day, and unless you shorten or unless you have in mind the shortening of your address, it doesn't look as if you will be able to do it. If you can't do it, then we will have to take your documents as they are without any further reference. It seems to me that with reference to prisoners of war, all you have got to do is tell us what are the numbers of the affidavits which deal with it and say "I particularly refer to such and such an order or such and such an affidavit," and then we shall know that you attach particular importance to those affidavits, but to deal with it in detail like this is simply wasting our time. Anyhow, what I mean is that at the end of half a day your address on these topics will cease.
DR. LATERNSER: But, Mr. President, I must have an opportunity of answering the accusations of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: You are having that opportunity at the present moment and you have had since twelve o'clock.
DR. LATERNSER: On 13 February 1946 it was asserted that on the island of Chortiza on the Dnieper, corpses of Red Army men were found who had been tortured, whose hands had been cut off, whose eyes had been put out, and whose stomachs had been cut open (Volume VII, Page 347). This is refuted by Affidavit Number 1115 of Field Marshal Von Kleist, who was commander-in-chief of the troops there. No German troops -were used on this island, but the Hungarian Light Corps was fighting there. That is shown by Affidavit 1115. In the Northern sector of the Eastern Front, according to the transcript of 13 February 1946, prisoners are said to have been driven before the attacking German troops who used them as shields (Volume VII, Page 348). This is clearly refuted by the testimony of the former commander-in-chief of the 18th Army, Generaloberst Lindemann, Affidavit 1116-a. This testimony is reinforced on the same point by the affidavit of Colonel Nolte, Number 3159. The Russian Document USSR-151 and the speech of the Prosecution of 13 February 1946 contain the examination of General Von 6stOrreich, who made especially serious charges with regard to the treatment of prisoners (Volume VII, Pages 363-365). As counterevidence I present Affidavit Number 1117 which proves that Von Osterreich reproduced the conference in May 1941 quite wrongly. In particular the affidavit refutes the assertion that orders were given to fire on fleeing prisoners or to poison prisoners incapable of working. According to the transcript of 13 February 1946, numerous prisoners in the prison of Sevastopol are said to have been killed by intentionally bad treatment (Volume VII, Page 383). This assertion is clearly disproved by the testimony of the Army Medical Officer of the 11th Army at that time, Generalstabsarzt Grosse, in his Affidavit 1118. According to the transcript of 13 February 1946, three trainloads of prisoners of war are said to have been taken from Kertch to Sevastopol and burned or drowned at sea there on 4 September or December 1943 (Volume VII, Page 383).
DR. LATERNSER: This assertion is disproved by the testimony of Generals Deichmann and Ruttiger in Affidavits 3140 and 3007; both generals were in the Crimea at that time. The Russian Prosecution tried ' on 13 February 1946, to portray the violent fighting in the quarries near Kertch as bestiality on the part of the Germans (Volume VII, Page 388). Gas is said to have been used, and according to the testimony of a woman who apparently made an exact count, 900 prisoners were maltreated or shot. The clear testimony of the commanding general in that area, General Mattenklott, contradicts this; the reference is Affidavit 1121. Document USSR-62 and the Prosecution speech of 13 February 1946, according to which on the orders of Field Marshal Model and General Nehring no prisoners were to be taken, are refuted by Affidavits 1222-a to f, that is, by six affidavits on this particular point (Volume VII, Page 392). Maltreatment of prisoners in Norwegian camps is also alleged in the Prosecution speech of 14 February 1946 (Volume VII, Page 433). Generaloberst Von Falkenhorst, in Affidavit 1123, proves that these prisoners were not under the military but under the SS. Affidavits 1150 to 1160 testify that wounded prisoners were everywhere treated like our own wounded. From the many theaters of war there is testimony that the enemy himself acknowledged that the treatment was good. On this point I submit Statements 1161 and 1162, the latter containing an acknowledgment by the American General Storm. Number 1165 testifies to a letter of thanks from the nephew of the King of England, and Number 1166 contains several letters from RAF officers to the commandant of the Air Force prisoner of war camp at Oberursel thanking him for his chivalrous attitude. Affidavit 1168 shows that in October 1942 the commander of the 14th Division, General Heim, in an order to the German troops at Stalingrad stated that Russian prisoners were to be provided with food and that for this purpose food supplies for the German troops were to be further reduced, although they were already very small.