dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
ROSENBERG: I only want to point out that we are dealing here with an assistant of the Forestry Office in Berlin, who had added that on the basis of his reports. What Koch had produced was a report from the Chief of the Forest Administration in the Ukraine, himself.
GEN. RUDENKO: All right. The last question in connection with this incident: Did you believe Koch when he stated that?
ROSENBERG: If I am asked on my conscience, that is hard to answer; but there was a. . .
GEN. RUDENKO: It is exactly on your conscience, if you like.
ROSENBERG: A description of actual conditions by the Forestry Administration was included, and I could not protest against such a presentation since it appeared well-founded, and I had to admit to myself that I had made a mistake in protesting.
GEN. RUDENKO: You did not protest against that, I quite understand. I shall finish by just reminding you of one quotation from your letter: "Hundreds of people in and around Zuman were shot by using a whole police company 'because they were communistically inclined.' No Ukrainian believes that. The Germans are also astonished by this argument; because, if this was done for the safety of the country, then the communist infected elements in other regions should have been executed at the same time." I have here to put to you the last question. Here in the Tribunal yesterday you declared several times that you wanted to resign from your post. Moreover, you spoke about your letter to Hitler, dated 12 October 1944, where you asked for directives for the future. Regarding this my colleague, Mr. Dodd, has already reminded you that at that date, 12 October 1944, the Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories no longer had any territories, because the Germans were out of Russia by that time. I would like to ask you the following question: How could you ask to be relieved of your post, you, who for years had dreamed about getting this position of Reich Minister and even becoming a member of the Secret Cabinet? You asked Hitler to grant you this position of Reich Minister. Do you remember that?
ROSENBERG: In the first place I was never a member of the so-called Secret Cabinet. That is not correct.
GEN. RUDENKO: Well, I shall correct myself. You dreamed of becoming a member of the Secret Reich Cabinet.
ROSENBERG: Yes, that is correct.
GEN. RUDENKO: And also dreamed of becoming Reich Minister; is that also true?
ROSENBERG: When the question as to my task became acute, there was a long discussion one way and another about the form of that task. Dr. Lammers, commissioned by the Fuehrer, told me that the Fuehrer intended either to appoint a Reich inspector because he wanted both Reich Commissioners to. . .
GEN. RUDENKO: Defendant Rosenberg, please. So that we shall not linger too long on that question, I am going to submit to the Tribunal a document. This is your personal letter-the last document . . .
THE PRESIDENT: In the first place, I do not know what the question is, and you are interrupting the witness before he has answered any question.
GEN. RUDENKO: No, Mr. President. I have but one aim here, because I should also like to shorten my interrogation in accordance with the desire of the Tribunal. So I am going to submit the letter of Rosenberg of 6 February 1938, addressed to Hitler, wherein he requests the post of Reich Minister from Hitler. That is a short letter. I ask permission to submit this document as Document USSR-117. c [Turning to the defendant.] Defendant Rosenberg, I am going to read this document into the record. It is not very long: "6 February 1938. My Fuehrer, because I was unable..."
THE PRESIDENT: The document is translated into German, is it not?
GEN. RUDENKO: The original is in German. 17 April 4G
THE PRESIDENT: It is in German to start with. It is not necessary to read it all; you can put it in like other documents.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. [Turning to the defendant.] In this letter you expressed your resentment in connection with the appointment of the Defendant Ribbentrop as Minister of Foreign Affairs. Is that correct?
ROSENBERG: Yes, yes.
GEN. RUDENKO: You thought that the post of the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Hitler Cabinet could have been filled by yourself, Defendant Rosenberg; is that correct?
ROSENBERG: Yes, and I do not find it so extraordinary that I should not have expressed my wish to be used in the State service of the German Reich after so many years of activity.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. You speak in this letter of the existence of a secret cabinet; is that correct?
ROSENBERG: Well, may I read through this letter a little? Because I cannot answer fragmentary questions.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well, yes. [Handing the document to the defendant.] Please read it through.
ROSENBERG: Yes, I have read this.
GEN. RUDENKO: Everything that is contained in it is correct?
ROSENBERG: Certainly, yes.
GEN. RUDENKO: This is your own letter?
ROSENBERG: Yes.
GEN. RUDENKO: You asked to be appointed into this secret Reich Cabinet?
ROSENBERG: Yes.
GEN. RUDENKO: You asked for the position of Reich Minister?
ROSENBERG: I reported that I had spoken to Party Member Goering about the question of this appointment; and since the Fuehrer had charged me with the ideological education of the Party and since the foreign political office of the Party still existed and the impression might thereby arise in the Party that I had somehow been refused by the Fuehrer, I therefore asked the Fuehrer to receive me personally to discuss this matter. I think it quite understandable that I should express the wish to speak about a matter which was important to me personally.
GEN. RUDENKO: Therefore here is my last question-you were the closest collaborator of Hitler in carrying out all his plans and his ideas?
ROSENBERG: No, that is not correct; that is absolutely wrong.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well, let us consider it as a reply to my question. I have finished, Mr. President.
M. HENRI MONNERAY (Assistant Prosecutor for the French Republic): I have only a few questions to ask the defendant. [Turning to the defendant.] Defendant Rosenberg, is it correct that the deportation and the execution of the Jews in France put your organization in a position to seize furniture and valuables which belonged to these Jews?
ROSENBERG: It is quite true that I received a governmental order to confiscate archives, works of art, and later, household goods of Jewish citizens in France.
M. MONNERAY: The mass deportation of Jews could only increase the profits of your confiscation and seizures; is that not so?
ROSENBERG: No. The deportation of Jews has nothing to do with that. The suggestion for these measures was given only when I was informed that the Jewish people in question no longer inhabited their institutions, castles, and apartments-that they had left Paris and other places and had not returned.
M. MONNERAY: Once the Jews were deported they were absent; is that not true?
ROSENBERG: When the German troops marched in, Paris was almost entirely depopulated. The rest of the Parisians and inhabitants of cities in the north of France returned in the course of time; but, as I have been informed, the Jewish population did not return to these cities-particularly not to Paris. Therefore they had not been deported, but they had fled. I believe the number of those who had fled was given as 5, 6, or 7 millions or more. ~
M. MONNERAY: Do you mean to say by that, Defendant Rosenberg, that in the time that followed, when new deportation measures were carried out in the course of the German occupation of France, the apartments and homes of people deported were not seized by your organization?
ROSENBERG: No, I cannot express it that way. It may very well be that the apartments of Jewish persons who had been arrested had also been confiscated under certain circumstances, but I cannot give any exact information about that.
M. MONNERAY: One can, therefore, say that the deportation measures gave to your organization a greater chance of success in seizures and confiscations; is that not true?
ROSENBERG: No, that does not agree with the facts; but, as may be seen from the report which the French Prosecution made here, what actually happened was that confiscated apartments generally were sealed by the Police. Two months were allowed to elapse to see whether or not the owners of these apartments would return, and only after the fact had been established that this was not the case were the household goods transferred to Germany for those whose homes had been damaged by bombs. That can be seen from the report which the French Prosecution has submitted here.
M. MONNERAY: I suppose that there are very few cases-and I am sure you would agree with me on this-of people who had been deported returning after two months?
ROSENBERG: On the contrary! I was informed about such cases. Even in Document 001-PS, regrettable as it is from the humane point of view, it is clearly stated that we had heard that a large number of Jewish personalities, who had been formerly arrested, had been released again.
M. MONNERAY: You remember, certainly, the memorandum which you sent to Hitler on 3 October 1942, which has already been presented to the Tribunal as Document Number RF-1327. In that document you remind Hitler of your jurisdiction and your powers; and you say that it is a matter for you, as Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories, to seize the homes of Jews who had taken flight, who were absent, or who were called upon to leave. I can submit this document to you in order to refresh your memory if necessary. [The document was submitted to the defendant.] The first lines of that document are the ones I am referring to. I emphasize the words "the Jews who were called upon to leave later." It is a document of 3 October 1942, which has already been submitted.
ROSENBERG: Yes, that is correct-that is according to the facts. And as I have already said before, it is possible that a number of apartments of arrested people-other people who were absent-were included in that; but as I said before, in the other report there was more detailed information. But this document as such corresponds to the facts; it is a letter from me.
M. MONNERAY: The consequence of this act was that you were entrusted not only with the seizure of apartments which you found vacant at the time of the arrival of the Germans in Paris but also of apartments of people who were, as you say, "called upon to leave" in the following period. , You surely know, Defendant Rosenberg, under what conditions, in territories occupied by the Germans in the West as well as in the East, Jews were called upon to leave-namely, in special trains which generally led directly to concentration camps?
ROSENBERG: No, I did not know about those trains. We definitely dealt with deserted apartments, and I was probably informed that eventually also the apartments of people who had been arrested, people who were still living, or had long since fled would be taken into consideration. Nothing more is stated here, and I could not give you any further information. As to the reports which have. been submitted here at the Trial, I have seen them here for the first time. I can only tell you that in the end I was informed that, before the conquest of Paris by Allied troops, all available furniture and household equipment was turned over to the French Red Cross.
M. MONNERAY: Do you agree with me on the following point: That your organization had the right to seize valuables and apartments which had become vacant after the arrival of the German troops in Paris? Do you agree with me on that point?
ROSENBERG: Yes.
M. MONNERAY: Defendant, you have just said that 'you had no knowledge whatsoever of the deportations in special trains to special destinations. Do you know-and I suppose you do know it since the document to which I am referring has already been produced before the Tribunal that in Paris every Tuesday since 1941 and until the end of the German occupation conferences called "Tuesday meetings" brought together the representatives of the various German organizations in Paris-that is to say, the experts in Jewish affairs in the different German administrative organs-to be exact, a representative of the German Military Command, a representative of the Civilian Administration, a representative of the Police Department, and a representative of the Economics Department? At these meetings there was also present a representative of the German Embassy in Paris and also a representative of your Special Staff. I am referring to Document Number RF-1210, which is are part of Dannecker of 22 February 1942. He was the responsible chief and the main expert on anti-Jewish terrorist action in Paris during the occupation. If you wish, I will submit that document to you.
ROSENBERG: I remember these declarations made during the Trial very well, but I have never received a report about these Tuesday conferences which took place regularly. The fact that my deputy for the furniture action had to maintain closest liaison with the Police Divas a matter of course, since the confiscations of such articles could not be carried out by my office, that being an exclusive right of the Police. Therefore, one had to speak to the Police about these matters. It was not reported to me that there were regular Tuesday conferences. I believe that if such a report had been consistently turned in it would have been submitted to me.
M. MONNERAY: You agree, however, that these Tuesday meetings were extremely useful to the interests of your organization. As 17 April 4G a matter of fact, the various collective actions which were taken against the Jews-that is to say, arrests, police raids, and deportations-were discussed in those meetings. Did it not, therefore, seem completely logical and natural for your organization to be regularly informed of these actions in order that it might take the resulting economic steps-namely, seizures of property?
ROSENBERG: In my opinion that is not logical at all, because if that certain Chief of Police sent secret transports of that kind into these camps, as has been revealed here, then it does not follow that he would report about that every Tuesday to the other gentlemen. Neither do I believe that this Chief of Police informed the representative of the Foreign Of lice about these things in detail.
M. MONNERAY: You are perhaps badly informed on this point, but I would like to read again the concluding passage of the report which says, "The conference had as a result an alignment of Jewish policy as complete as could be realized in the occupied territory . . ."
THE PRESIDENT: The witness has said, has he not, that he does not know anything about these Tuesday meetings-he received no reports of them?
M. MONNERAY: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Then why are you asking about them?
M. MONNERAY: The agencies in Paris collaborated actively in the terrorist policy of the Police and benefited by it through the economic step which followed-namely, the seizure of valuables.
THE PRESIDENT: You have not been able to connect him with these reports-with the document. He has not signed the document. Nothing shows on the document that he received it-at least, I suppose not-or you would have put it to him. He says he did not know the document.
M. MONNERAY: Allow me, Mr. President, in that case to ask, whether he contests the reality of the evidence concerning the representation of his Paris organization at this meeting. [Turning to the defendant.] Do you deny its presence at this meeting?
ROSENBERG: I cannot give any information about that, because I have not received any report.
M. MONNERAY: I would like to conclude this crossexamination by reminding you of a document which has already been produced, quoted, and discussed-that is Document 001-PS. In that document the defendant proposes, in the first paragraph, the transport of all seized household goods to the East, and in Paragraph 2 he suggests to Hitler that French Jews instead of other Frenchmen should be shot as hostages. Considering, as a result of the questions and answers, that the organization of the defendant could benefit by these measures of execution and deportation, it seems that the real motive of this document is very clear. It is necessary-is not that your opinion, Defendant-first to get rid of the people in order to be able afterwards to seize their property?
ROSENBERG: No, that is not true.
M. MONNERAY: I have no more questions to ask, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you want to ask anything of the witness, Dr. Thoma?
DR. THOMA: Mr. President, may I quite briefly ask the defendant whether he wants me to ask him another question? I believe I shall have finished immediately.
ROSENBERG: No.
DR. THOMA: Thank you. The defendant does not want any more questions. Then, with the permission of the Court, I should like to call the witness Riecke.
THE PRESIDENT: Will he be long or not?
DR. THOMA: Half an hour at most.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Well then, the defendant may retire. [The witness Riecke took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?
HANS JOACHIM RIECKE (Witness): Hans Joachim Riecke.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God-the Almighty and Omniscient-that I will speak the pure truth-and will withhold and add nothing. [The witness repeated the oath.]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down. Dr. Thoma, will you spell the name, please?
DR. THOMA: Riecke. [Turning to the witness.] Witness, what position did you have in the Economic Staff East and in the Ministry of the Occupied Eastern Territories?
RIECKE: I held both positions upon orders from Goering. I was in charge of the food and agriculture department.
DR. THOMA: What was the task of these offices?
RIECKE: The first main task of this office was the reconstruction of Russian agriculture; the second task was the utilization of the surplus areas in the south for the Armed Forces and for nutrition purposes.
DR. THOMA: What offices were established for administration in the Occupied Eastern Territories?
RIECKE: In addition to the Foreign Ministry there existed a number of special assignments: Goering for agriculture, Himmler for police, and Sauckel for the recruitment of manpower.
DR. THOMA: Who was in charge of agriculture?
RIECKE: Agriculture-and also the entire economy-was under Goering. He gave his instructions directly or through State Secretaries Korner and Backe.
DR. THOMA: Were the figures for delivery-the quota in agriculture-higher than those imposed under the Soviet administration?
RIECKE: The figures imposed for delivery were adjusted to the former Russian figures. During the first year the actual quantities delivered were lower than during the Russian era. In the next year, as far as crops were concerned, they were lower; as far as livestock was concerned, higher.
DR. THOMA: Were the actual deliveries according to Goering's directives?
RIECKE: No, Goering had expected considerably higher figures.
DR. THOMA: Did Germany ship agricultural machinery-scythes and so on-into the Occupied Eastern Territories and in what quantities?
RIECKE: A large-scale program for agricultural machinery under the name of the Eastern Agricultural Program was set up in Germany whereby, with regard to war conditions, large amounts of agricultural machinery and equipment were shipped into the occupied Russian territories. The reason for that was the removal and large-scale destruction of agricultural machinery and equipment by the Russians during their retreat.
DR. THOMA: On 5 February 1942 an agricultural decree was issued. What were the reasons for that?
RIECKE: The main purpose of that agricultural decree was to get the population to cooperate voluntarily. In the beginning it was intended to maintain the collective economy. That proved to be impossible, because-as has been mentioned-part of the heavy machinery, especially tractors, was no longer available. On the other hand, it was not possible to resort to individual farming, as some of the population wished, because smaller equipment was also lacking. Therefore a compromise solution was reached by so-called agricultural cooperatives whereby the Russian peasants got a share of the land to work, but a part of the work was still carried on collectively.
DR. THOMA: What was the result?
RIECKE: The result of the agricultural decree was generally favorable. The extent and quantity of the tillage increased. A particularly good example of the results was the conditions in the so-called Kharkov Basin, where in the spring of 1942 the farms which had been converted to agricultural cooperatives had already achieved more than 70 percent of the spring tillage, whereas the unconverted collective farms had achieved only about 30 percent.
DR. THOMA: On 3 June 1943 the so-called private property declaration was issued. What were the principles involved?
RIECKE: The basic purpose of the private property declaration was to turn over to the Russian peasants as personal property the shares of land which had been allotted to them by the agricultural decree.
DR. THOMA: How was the vegetable supply of large cities handled-for example, in the Ukraine?
RIECKE: Around the large cities considerable lands for garden plots were allotted to the working population.
DR. THOMA: Now some questions about Latvia. Did the German Administration in Latvia confiscate the land of the Latvian peasants?
RIECKE: No; on the contrary. The nationalization measures taken by the Russians during the occupation were discontinued. The land which had been separated from the farms for purposes of settlement was returned to the former owners. To say it in one sentence: The conditions existing before the Russian occupation were reestablished.
COL. POKROVSKY: I beg to be excused, but I cannot understand-with the best of wishes-what all these questions, even in the remotest way, have to do with the case of the Defendant Rosenberg. It seems to me that further questions of the defense counsel, if they are along these same lines, should not be allowed.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, you ought to show that what the witness is testifying about is connected in some way with the Defendant Rosenberg.
DR. THOMA: With this question I want, first, to refute the Soviet assertion that after the occupation the Barons had their land returned to them-I refer to the Soviet Prosecution's document, Document Number USSR-395, which I submitted to the Tribunal yesterday. Secondly, I want to prove with it that that area was supposed to be administered in an orderly way and in such a manner that the population cooperated voluntarily. Thirdly, I want to prove that during the entire German occupation not one Ukrainian nor one citizen of the Soviet Union starved, because the agricultural work was conducted accordingly. But I can demonstrate this proof only through statements of an expert. I believe that I have only a few more questions, and then I shall have finished with this subject of evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on, Dr. Thoma.
DR. THOMA: Did the German Administration in Latvia confiscate the land of the Latvian peasants?
RIECKE: I have answered that question already. On the contrary, socialization was revoked, and the land separated for settlement purposes was returned to the Latvian peasants. In a word, conditions as existing before the Russian occupation were reestablished.
DR. THOMA: Were former large German estates reinstated?
RIECKE: No. On the contrary, Latvian peasants' property- which after 1919 had been created at the expense of large German estates-was left in their hands. It remained their property.
DR. THOMA: What were the ideas behind the so-called reprivatization?
RIECKE: Reprivatization was intended to give the Latvian peasants the feeling of security derived from working their own property.