dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. LATERNSER: Further examples of the chivalrous treatment of captured enemy soldiers are given in Statement 1170, and in that of General Student, Number 1171. When infantile paralysis broke out among British prisoners on Crete, General Student sent a transport plane to Berlin for the necessary serum, in spite of the difficult position of the German troops, who were dependent on supplies from the air. Oberstabsarzt Dr. Schtifer, in Affidavit 1172, says that the Mountain Rescue Service in the Alps saved approximately 350 enemy flyers from death. Document 1174 testifies to outstanding personal chivalry on the part of Colonel Count Klinkowstr6m, and I would like to refer to it.
THE PRESIDENT: Surely, Dr. Laternser, you can give us the reference to the numbers of the affidavits which state that prisoners were treated properly. Why waste time about it by telling us what each affidavit says. You only have to tell us that these affidavits refer to good treatment by individuals.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, if I only give numbers and do not refer at least partially to the contents, none of this material will have any weight, because these affidavits have not been translated. Of all the affidavits approximately 40 have been translated. If I cannot go into at least some of the contents, then the Tribunal will not be able to take these affidavits into consideration at all.
THE PRESIDENT: We have got the summary before us in writing. What you are practically doing in every case is to repeat the summary which we have already before us in writing; for instance, 1174: Decent treatment of English prisoners. There is another one from some of the British officers showing who the British officer is and saying what he said about the treatment. Well, I have made it quite clear to you, I hope, that you will not be allowed to go on beyond a half day; and now the Tribunal will adjourn. [A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will not sit on Saturday next.
DR. LATERNSER: The Russian Prosecution, on 13 February 1946 made charges concerning the robbing of corpses (Volume VII, Pages 347 and 354). Evidence to the contrary is provided by Affidavits 1176 to 1178. The Russian Prosecution asserts that Soviet prisoners of war were forced to serve in the German Wehrmacht. In this connection I refer to Affidavits 1179 to 1203, which show that in one year alone the number of volunteers was 500,000 men. On the subject of the treatment of prisoners in the home area, I refer to Affidavits 1208 to 1213. On the subject of special measures for the prevention of excesses, I refer to Affidavits 1214 to 1216. Destruction and plundering: I have subdivided my material into five sections: 1. Alleged destruction and desecration of churches, 2. Destructions during the advance in the East, 3. Alleged destruction and plundering of cultural monuments and cultural sites, 4. Destructions during the retreat, 5. Plundering., Affidavits 1301 to 1353 refute the assertion of the Prosecution concerning the destruction and desecration of- numerous churches. Most of the churches had already been destroyed or had already been desecrated by being turned into warehouses, workshops, or in certain instances into atheist museums. Affidavits 1301 to 1323 give evidence of this. During the retreat, churches were especially protected: Affidavit 1324. Affidavits 1325 to 1348 prove that in fact the churches were restored to their religious purpose. Special protection of churches: in the French campaign, the prevention of a major fire in the Cathedral at Rouen by order of a high military commander is shown by Affidavits 1349 to 1353. With reference to Section 2, Affidavits 1354 to 1401 deal with destructions during the advance. Affidavits 1354 to 1362 prove the organized work of Soviet commandos who were charged with destructions before the German advance.
DR. LATERNSER: Affidavits 1363 to 1398 show the tremendous destruction carried out by the Russians in the Donets Basin,, and in the industrial areas of Stalino, Maikop, Artenisk, Dniepropetrovsk, Krivoy-Rog, Orel, Orchom-Kisegrad, Zaporozhe, Smolensk, Vitebsk, Rovno, Riga, and Kharkov. In Vitebsk, according to Affidavit 1319, actual firebrand commandos were set into action with gasoline cans. All this refutes the assertions of the Prosecution in the transcripts of 18 February 1946 (Volume VII, Page 534), 21 February 1946 (Volume VII, Page 90), and 22 February 1946 (Volume VII, Page 124). The dam at Zaporozhe was destroyed by the Russians themselves. This is proved by Affidavits 1371 to 1384. The chief reason for destruction in France is explained by Affidavit 1400. Destructions in Greece were not carried out by the German troops but by the retreating enemy troops, and this is proved by Affidavit 1401. Affidavits 14.02 to 1552 deal with Section 3, destruction and plundering, of cultural monuments, and clearly refute a number of assertions. Affidavit 1402 was deposed by Field Marshal Von Kuchler and states that art treasures were taken from areas at the front to the rear and stored in a secure museum in Pleskov. In a ceremony there, they were handed over to the Metropolitan of the city. Leningrad: Destruction was determined by military necessity. Affidavits 1403 to 1405 are proof thereof and refute the testimony of the witnesses Orbeli and Lomakin. Affidavits 1406 to 1411 refer to the places in the vicinity of Leningrad, most of which were destroyed by Russian fire. The famous estate of Tolstoi in Yasnaya Polyana was spared by the Germans upon express orders of Generaloberst Guderian, as shown by Affidavits 1412 to 1418. One of these affidavits deposes that in the Russian victory film of the spring of 1942 the Tolstoi estate was shown undamaged after recapture. The Tschaikovsky Museum in Klin was not plundered by the Germans. Proof: Affidavits 1419 to 1422.
DR. LATERNSER: Affidavits , 1423 to 1427 prove that the observatory in Bulkowo was never in German hands and therefore was not plundered by the German Wehrmacht. The observatory at Siemais in the Crimea was not plundered by German troops. According to Affidavit 1428 the instruments were removed by the Russians in their retreat before the German troops marched in. Destructions in Novgorod (Affidavits 1429 to 1438) were never ordered. St. Peter's Church and the famous Schwarzhiiupter House in Riga were not destroyed by the Germans but by fire by the Russians themselves. Riga, Reval, and Novgorod suffered heavily through Russian bombing attacks. The church treasures of Novgorod were not plundered by German troops. The Russians in 1941 loaded these treasures on a ship which sank in the Wolchow and remained lying there. Proof of this: Affidavits 1429 to 1438. The monument "1000 Years of Russia" was treated by the Germans correctly and with great care. Proof of this: Affidavits 1439 and 1440. An order to set 500 villages in the neighborhood of Pleskov on fire was never given. Proof: Affidavits 1441 to 1443. Generaloberst Mackensen did not rob the museum in Rostov of valuable paintings. Proof: Affidavit 3021. Destruction in Kiev: Kiev came into German hands relatively undamaged. Affidavits 1444 to 1451 prove that the destruction was caused primarily by time bombs. The German troops did everything to fight the fire and remove the mines, and in that way the Lenin Museum was saved. Hoses to fight the fire were brought in from Germany by airplane. Proof of this: Affidavits 1444 to 1451. Plundering in Tula never took place. German troop~ were never in Tula, Lt only reached the edge of the city; see Affidavit 1452. Affidavits 1453 to 1483 refer to plundering and destruction during the retreat., Affidavit 1483 by General W6hler gives proof of the fact that at the last minute the wish of a high Russian Church prelate in Poltava, that church valuables be safeguarded, was fulfilled.
DR. LATERNSER: Affidavits 1484 to 1500 and 1551 to 1591 prove that plundering of any kind was strictly prohibited and was severely punished, even if an object of small value was involved. Affidavit 3024 by General Eberbach is especially important and proves that the order given by Hitler in the summer of 1944, that everything was to be destroyed in the retreat from France, was not carried out by the commander-in-chief of the 7th Army in agreement with Field Marshal Model. For the Italian theater of war, there is the testimony of witnesses Kesselring and Weizsdcker, and in addition, Affidavits 3008, 3025, and 3026, which show that: (1) cities of cultural value were evacuated in good time; (2) art treasures from Monte Cassino, Ravenna, Bologna, and Rimini were protected and removed to safety; (3) the destruction of industrial installations, which had been ordered, was not carried out, and through the personal intervention of a German general the port of Genoa was saved from, being blown up. This is shown in Affidavits 3008, 3025, and 3026. I should like to refer to Documents USSR-115, USSR-168, and General Staff Number 19 contained in my document book. The Wehrmacht communiqu6 of 18 May 1940 shows that Louvain was taken after hard fighting. This explains the damage to the university at Louvain, which the witness Van der Essen believed he could attribute to arbitrary acts. Treatment of the civilian population: The Russian Prosecution has asserted, on 8 February 1946, that the directives for the "Barbarossa" order called for the physical destruction of people under suspicion (Volume VII, Page 172). In order to refute this, I refer to Affidavits 1601, 1601-a, and 1601-b, which show that frequently the death penalty was imposed for excesses, especially in cases of rape. 1601-c offers evidence of three death sentences for crimes committed against a Russian family. It is asserted, on 14 February 1946, that the German Wehrmacht, on 1 July 1941, carried out a mass killing in Lvov (Volume VII, Page 454).
DR. LATERNSER: 1 refer to Affidavits 1602, 1603, and 1604 which show that when the German troops marched in, many rows of partly mutilated corpses were found, and were viewed by several generals. On 2 July the 49th Mountaineer Corps took steps against the maltreatment of Jews by the local Ukrainians. According to the Prosecution speech of 15 February 1946 135,000 corpses were said to be found in the area of Smolensk (Volume VII, Pages 465-466). Evidence to the contrary: Affidavits 3006 and 1607, showing that especially good relations existed with the population there. Among other things, the famed Cathedral at Smolensk was restored and reopened. During the retreat large masses of the population followed the German troops against the wish of the commanders. That is proved by Affidavit 1608. According to the assertions made on 15 February 1946, 245 children were poisoned with coffee and cake at Kertch (Volume VII, Page 493). Evidence to the contrary: Number 1609, an affidavit by General Konrad, which also shows that relations with the population of the Crimea were especially good. I refer particularly to Affidavits 1611 and 1612 in this connection. According to the assertion of the Prosecution on 15 February 1946, a cruel alarm order was issued by the commander of Feodosia and instructions published by the 260th Infantry Division (Volume VII, Page 499). Evidence: Affidavit 1612-a, which shows that a 260th Infantry Division was never stationed in the Crimea. Supplementary proof: 1614. In the Prosecution's case of 15 February 1946 reprisals in Kiev in 1941 are mentioned (Volume VII, Page 503). 1 refer on this point to an affidavit by General Von Obstfelder, Number 1615. According to Affidavit 1616, also deposed by General Von Obstfelder, German troops gave substantial aid to an insane asylum which presented a dreadful picture of negligence, as the inmates had been left to look after themselves. With regard to the alleged murder of 33,000 Jews in Kiev, I refer to Affidavit Number 1665 deposed by General Heim. He knows of no order to that effect.
DR. LATERNSER: In the autumn of 1943, 195,000 persons are alleged to have been killed in mass executions and in gas vans in Kiev. For counterevidence I refer to Affidavits 1116-a, 1116-b, and 1116-c, which show that the Wehrmacht never possessed any gas vans. According to the record of 15 February 1946, the military command in Stalingrad sowed death everywhere (Volume VII, Page 504). The state of affairs in Stalingrad - is described in Affidavit 1617. The accusation is made on 18 February 1946 that the German Wehrmacht drowned 144,000 Russians in the sea (Volume VII, Pages 545-546). At another point, 144,000 citizens are again mentioned as having been taken out to sea on ferries and then drowned. I refer to Affidavits 1609, 3007, 3140, 1625, and 1625-a, which show, among other things, that the shipping space was so inadequate that not even the supplies of the German troops could be entirely handled by way of the water and that the air transport service had to help out. It is asserted on 26 February 1946, quite generally, that the Wehrmacht participated in the persecution of the Jews (Volume VIII, Page 294). 1 refer to Affidavit 1629, deposed by Field Marshal Von Kuchler, who describes at great length the absolute refusal of the Wehrmacht to take part in such things, and its endeavors to take measures against excesses. Affidavits 1630 and 1632 are of significance in this connection; they testify especially to the medical help provided, against the wish of certain quarters, during a typhus epidemic among the Jews. To show that no orders were issued for the killing of Jews or other members of the population of the occupied territories, and also that troops did not take part therein, I refer to Affidavits 3051, 3057, 3083, 3084, 3097, 3099, 3111, 3142, 3150, and 3172. Some documents of the Soviet Prosecution, including USSR-291, Pages I to 3, allege that atrocities were committed in the area of Vyasma and Rizhevska, and also in the area of Rzhev.
DR. LATERNSER: Affidavit 1633 by General Praun deals with the accusation made against General Weiss that he ordered people in Rzhev to be hanged. Two women were sentenced to death at that time and were hanged publicly. Reason: The murder of 15 children and the sale of the flesh of these children on the market. For that reason two women were hanged publicly at Rzhev. USSR-2, Page 7, speaks of slavery in Stalino. Evidence to the contrary: Affidavit 1637, by General Kittel. , USSR-91, Pages I and 8, mentions atrocities near Leningrad and Pskov; refutation by Affidavit 1640, deposed by Field Marshal Von Kilchler. The alleged shooting of 50,000 inhabitants of the city of Narva is refuted by the statements of the same officer, hi Affidavits 1646 and 1647. Numerous measures to aid the city of Pleskov are described in Affidavit 1645. USSR-39 deals with Estonia; refutation of this document by Meld Marshal Von Leeb, Affidavit 1641. The attitude taken by the commanders-in-chief with respect to the Reichenau order is shown in Affidavits 1662, 1663, and 1665. Particularly the last affidavit, 1665, states the reasons for this decree of Field Marshal Von Reichenau. One of the reasons was the murder of two German officers. With regard to Italy, the correct behavior of the troops is described in Affidavits 1666, and 1667 to 1670. Among these is an affidavit by the Prince of Hesse, who also mentions the view of the last Italian king. The same correct behavior is described with regard to Yugoslavia in Affidavits 1671 and 1672. Especially good co-operation was recognized as the rule in Norway and Denmark; evidence of this is contained in Affidavits Number 1673 and - 1674. Numerous examples of the endeavors of the Wehrmacht to win the co-operation of the Belgian and French populations, above all through the strictest control of troop discipline, are shown in Affidavits 1675 to 1679. Generaloberst Blaskowitz testifies in Affidavit 1680, and two other generals in Affidavits 1681 and 1682, that the Wehrmacht took severe measures against excesses by the troops in Poland.
DR. LATERNSER: Against plundering many drastic steps were taken. Proof: Affidavits 1683 and 1685. It is known that a saying was common in all occupied countries: "German soldier with eagle on chest-very good." And the fact that. this was so is due to the military leadership. With respect to the administration of military justice I should first of all like to call the attention of the High Tribunal to the diagram contained in my document book as General Staff Number 12, on Pages 72 to 74. This diagram, Page 74, shows that the commander-in-chief of an army may at times be judicial administrator only for a small part of the army area under his command. For the attitude of the military leaders toward the judicial system, I refer to Affidavits 501, 502-a, and 503. In addition, three of the highest judges of the former German Wehrmacht were examined, and their statements are contained in Affidavits 504, 505, and 506. It is the testimony of Judge General (Generaloberstabsrichter) Lehmann and Judge General Von Hammerstein. They describe what severe punishments were inflicted for crimes against the population of the East, and how Wehrmacht justice finally made its will prevail over Hitler's will. The Commando Order: the Prosecution submitted Documents 498-PS, Exhibit USA-501, and 503-PS, Exhibit USA-542, and I should like to point out that both of these documents were signed by Hitler. Affidavit Number 600 describes in detail that this Commando Order must be traced back to the sole initiative of Hitler, and that he did not consult his commanders-in-chief at the front before issuing it. Affidavit 600, therefore, refutes the assertion of the Prosecution that the military leaders had a part in the publication of this order. With regard to the execution of this Commando Order, the Prosecution has pointed out three cases which occurred in Norway. Unfortunately, I was not able to obtain any material on these cases.
DR. LATERNSER: In the Italian theater of war, according to the statement of the Prosecution, three British Commando units were 'captured on 2 November 1942 and turned over to the SD for special treatment: Document 509-PS, Exhibit USA-547. The Prosecution submitted this Document 509-PS as proof that these units were actually handed over, as is set down in this report to the OKW. This is an obvious conclusion but, as I shall prove, it is not correct. I refer to the testimony of General Westphal, given before the Commission, in which he expressly states under oath that these three British Commando units-the witness stated the exact place of their landing -were not turned over to the SD, but were sent to a prisoner-of-war camp, and that the report to the OKW to which the Prosecution refers, 509-PS, was a wrong report which did not correspond to the facts. In these three cases, therefore, the Commando Order was not applied. Thus General Westphal's statement made under oath before the Commission refutes Document 509-PS. I was not able to clarify the case of Dostler, because the records of the court martial were not put at my disposal, despite my request. Nevertheless, I should like to point out that a supplementary order by Field Marshal Kesselring was issued, and that he reserved the right to determine just what constituted a Commando operation. General Dostler does not belong to the group of persons accused. On the basis of Document L-51, Exhibit USA-521, it is alleged that in accordance with the order directing the application of the Commando Order to foreign military commissions also, several persons were shot. I refer to the contents of Document L-51, USA-521, which clearly shows that the Wehrmacht had nothing to do with this matter. I further refer to Document C-178, which shows that the General Staff of the Army and the General Staff of the Air Force protested against the Commando Order.
DR. LATERNSER: I also refer to Affidavit 610 regarding the application or nonapplication of the Commando Order for the theater of war in the West, and Supplementary Affidavits 611 and 622. Affidavit 617 shows that this order was not applied in the Netherlands. Affidavit 601 shows that the order was not applied in Africa; this is confirmed by Affidavits 603-c and 603-d. Affidavits 614 and 621 show that the order was not applied in the Italian theater of war, and of particular importance ~in this connection is Affidavit 619, in which proof is given that Field Marshal Kesselring reserved the right to determine what constituted a Commando operation. I further refer to Affidavits 3147 and 3148, which show that the Commander-in-Chief, Southeast, ordered that British Commando units landing on the Aegean islands were not to be considered as Commandos, but as German prisoners of war. General Bohme affirms in Affidavit 3174 ...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, you have been over half a day now. The Tribunal would like to know what it is further that you have to refer to.
DR. LATERNSER: I am now near the end of my evidence on the Commando Order, and I shall then refer very briefly to the deportation of workers-that will take two minutes-and to crimes against humanity and war crimes. I estimate that I shall need another twenty minutes altogether.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, the Tribunal has already-at least I have already pointed out to you over and ever again that all you are doing in substance is to read out what is already before us in writing, with certain references in addition to the Prosecution's evidence. In nearly every case we have before us in writing exactly what you say about these affidavits. There is no use nodding your head at me. I have checked it, and that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, is quite unnecessary. You can go on and you must refer us to the affidavits which you say relate to these topics, which you have properly announced as topics upon which you were going to produce documents. That is to say, deportation, rules of war and humanity, and you may refer to the numbers of the affidavits which deal with that and refer us also to the numbers, particularly of the documents which have been translated, and then we shall know where to find the documents which are important. Now will you go on please?
DR. LATERNSER: My last reference was to Affidavit 3174, which states that for the 20th Mountain Army the Commando, Order was changed by General B6hme with the approval of the OKW. Affidavit 625 proves that the Commando Order was not carried out in the Italian naval theater of operations. For the Eastern theater of war, Affidavits 608 and 616, as well as 624, show that the order was not carried through.
THE PRESIDENT: In order to show that I was entirely accurate in what I said to you, what we have before us is 608, General Wilke, "Rejection of the order by all commands in the East. No instance of shooting known." Go on.
DR. LATERNSER: With respect to the participation or the alleged participation of the military leaders in the deportation of workers, I refer to Affidavits Number 2001 to 2019. That is all with reference to this point.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, have any of them been translated?
DR. LATERNSER: No. Mr. President, that is exactly the misgiving I have. If the affidavits had been translated ...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, 2001, the substance of the affidavit is in the summary; the same in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2004-a, and right on down to 2019. The substance of the affidavit is in the summary before us. It doesn't help us in the least to have it repeated by you.