Q Why did this appear in your personnel record? give you voluminous reports which are unclear, which are inaccurate, which are not inaccurate but which are not wrong.
Q But you claim that this is a mistake?
A Yes, I maintain that this is a mistake. I can give you quite a number that are wrong.
Q Well, all right, show us some more mistakes?
A Where it says, 2 or 4/11. That we have. Then it says - -
Q Well, let's be a little more specific. Now further on in the same statement it is declared that since February 1942 you were commander of Security Police and the SD in White Ruthenia, is that correct? Is that correct. Is that correct, witness.
A (No answer.)
THE PRESIDENT: We will suspend the questioning for a moment. Dr. Gick, the Tribunal has decided to do this. To have the defendant Eduard Strauch once more examined psychiatrically, and upon the determination of the examination the Tribunal will decide what to do. We are not entirely convinced up to this moment that this defendant is not capable of understanding you a little more clearly and comprehensively than he seems to be understanding, but the only way that can be decided is psychiatrically. Now, witness, we will not question you further today, but we would advise you to make every effort to gather your mental forces and refresh your memory of the events which happened in Russia in 1941 and '42, so, when you come back into the courtroom you will be able to testify without hesitation, but we won't lose so much time as we did today. Do you understand that?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
THE WITNESS: I only want to say again that my mother has lost everything in her house, her own house, everything. It is, therefore, impossible -- or it is possible that there must be something remembered of these implements that were found, that my mother or I should be reproached or charged, that we are not able to do so.
I don't think that it is possible.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, just a moment now. Dr. Gick anything further you want to say at this moment?
DR. GICK: There is one thing, your Honor, I would like to say on this occasion; after the defendant has been examined by the psychiatrist, may I then ask the psychiatrist a few questions, and may I then again request the presence of Dr. Ritter von Bayer, and to hear his opinion as to this case.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, there is no reason why Dr. von Bayer may not be called into this conference. In fact, I think the present plans are to have him in on the conference.
DR. GICK: Thank you, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Now Dr. Aschenauer, will you be ready to proceed after recess? You will be, yes. All right. The Tribunal will now be in recess for fifteen minutes.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
Court, II, Case 9
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: I would like to say, Dr. Aschenauer, just before you begin that such other defense counsel as have their document books ready and intend to present them should be ready tomorrow morning to proceed and we would like to say - I don't see him here - that counsel for the defendant Fendler should be in tomorrow morning because we might call Fendler to the stand for a question or two. So, will one of counsel try to notify Fendler's counsel to that effect. Very well.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Preliminary question to the interpreter. Do the interpreters have a second copy of my document presentation?
INTERPRETER: Yes, I have.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, in that case may I tell you that I have talked with the prosecution and told them that I am presenting my documents together and that the end of the presentation of my documents the prosecution will raise their objection.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know just what difficulties either of you anticipate. If, Mr. Walton, you should indicate at the very moment that he presents the document why you object, if you object, why is not that program followed? It may be that you have a good reason.
MR. WALTON: YOur Honor, we agreed (any agreement which we made is, of course, subject to approval by the Tribunal and the wishes of the Tribunal will of course be followed in this.) However, we thought among ourselves that it would in the end save time and in addition to that would be important for comment either in the closing statement or in the brief of responsibility or the answer brief for counsel of both sides to find the record of the objection and the ruling on the objection in one consecutive spot. Now if that is going to place an undue burden on the Tribunal, naturally, I would not insist on such a procedure.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as it seems to us the first flush it may be after we get into it it will look different but as it seems to us prime faciedly:
we have a document before us. Dr. Aschenauer presents it and you find some reasons to object to it. You give your objection. We make our ruling and that ends it. The other way, after we listen to a discussion of some 5 documents then you come in and interpose an objection, Let us say, on thirty, well then you have to find your way through the labyrinth to connect it with the document when it is presented. It seems to us now that it might be better that is, as soon as he furnishes the document to which you desire to object you state your objection.
MR. WALTON: Very well, Your Honor, we will follow that.
THE PRESIDENT: well, we will try it.
Dr. Aschenauer do you see any serious objection to that procedure?
DR.ASCHENAUER: Yes, the objection I have for my part is that the documents form one unit and one document supplements others and that the entire document submission will be disturbed. The entire thing will be discontinued. That is the objection I have.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, isn't it going to be disturbed later when he gets up and points out his objection to various documents?
DR ASCHENAUER: I don't think so.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if it's ruled on immediately you know whether it is in or not. Let's try it this way a few minutes. There is no harm to be committed in trying it. Well, we will see how it works out.
DR. ASCHENAUER: In my presentation of documents in the case of Ohlendorf I am starting with Document Books II, II-A and II-B which II intended to introduce in their entirety concerning problems of a war in the East. They are intended to show how it came about that communists, Jews and Gypsies in the Soviet territory were considered as elements endangering security. They are also to show in what manner Communists, Jews and Gypsies constituted and element endangering the security in Soviet territory and why the defendant might have thought so. Ohlendorf and his co-defendants picked for themselves a special situation in this war situation which cannot be without influence in judging this question.
I, therefore, treat Document Books II, II-A, and II-B as an entirety. I submit Document 38 as Exhibit 1, Document 39 as Exhibit 2, and Document 40 as Exhibit 3.
MR. WALTON: Now, Your Honow, I would like to object to each one of these documents in Document Book II. The way they were presented was the series of four. Does the Tribunal wish me to take up each document separately or does it wish me to take up the document as a series?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, either way. Now we have these three documents and they are more or less inter-related. These three documents are inter-related and there is no reason why you can't address yourself to the three of them.
MR. WALTON: Well, prosecution objects to Document 38 as being the expert opinion on the law....
THE PRESIDENT: You are referring to Documents 38, 39 and 40.
MR. WALTON: I shall take them up as they were offered, 38 first.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. WALTON: Prosecution objects to the introduction of Document 38 as the expert opinion on the law of the case by Dr. Reinhard Maurach. It objects for the reason that this testimony is incompetent since this witness' testimony does not relate to matters of fact but to issues of international law involved in the proceeding, that is, to those specific issues of law which the Tribunal itself must determine. Second, a conclusion and inferences drawn from assumptions of fact as to necessity and self defense would be matters for argumentations either by brief or memoranda of law before this Tribunal. Since this Tribunal like any domestic court is presumed to know and authorized to take judicial notice of law of its own sovereignty and jurisdiction, and that law which is international law, in this instance, need not be proved. The court is competent to draw its own inferences from such international law.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Walton, in Dr. Aschenauer's opening statement he referred to this law. Dr. Aschenauer in his opening Statement referred to the law of self defense, law of necessity, law of presumed self defense, law of presumed necessity. That is part of his opening statement. That is part of his case. Now in support of that he submits an expert opinion. No harm can be done in having that before the Court. The court will accept it or not accept it, will agree with the theory by Professor Maurach or not. I can see no harm done in having it introduced. On the contrary it will be helpful in appraising the theory of defense as presented by Dr. Aschenauer.
MR. WALTON: May I cite a precidence in the Southeast Generals case where the defense was prevented quoting an expert opinion on international law.
THE PRESIDENT: You remember, Mr. Walton, in this case Professor Maurach was here and we specifically said to him that it is not necessary to take the witness stand and give a long dissertation but we shall be very happy to have you submit a brief on that subject which he now apparently has done. lightenment and illustration and for reference no one can possibly be prejudiced.
MR. WALTON: If Your Honor Pleases, Prosecution finds the duty on itself to object for purposes of the record. The ruling on that Objection is, of course, always within the breast of the court. However, I would like to get my objections in the record regardless of what the Court's ruling is.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. You m ay proceed.
MR. WALTON: It is of course true that in domestic courts foreign law may be proved by expert testimony. That, however, is only because it cannot be presumed that the so-called foreign law is known to the domestic court; here the law of the forum is, generally speaking, international law for this Tribunal, as Wigmore has put it and I quote:
"Must be coedited with a knowledge of its own or at least with a competent knowledge of where to search for it." Wigmore on Evidence, Section 2572, page 551. matter of argument for counsel's defense brief. The other questions of law treated are in their proper function for the Tribunal and as a defense document is objected to by the Prosecution. Document 39.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is overruled. Proceed to the next one.
MR. WALTON: Document 39 is an excerpt from a Stalin radio speech of 3 July 1941, page 60 of defense document book. The type of resistance instituted against an aggressor cannot justify before this Tribunal the liquidation of a racial group of people of an invaded country especially since this extermination was planned before the first act of aggression was ever committed. The fact that the attacked nation fought back with every means it possessed to expell the invader still does not justify the commission of nearly one hundred thousand murders.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Walton, if this speech by Stalin had said that Soviet troops should kill Jews I don't think that you would object to its introduction because then it would be argument on behalf of the defense; it did not say that , we know, but it is the theory of the defense that the Russians were conducting their warfare in such a manner as gave some justification, at least psychologically, that the defense for their acts, whether that is accepted or not, is a matter for argumentation and even decision. We see no reason and no harm is done in having this in the records. The objection is overruled.
MR. WALTON: Document 40, excerpt from the Russian was publication entitled "We are Guerrillas", no date given, page 61 to 67 of the defendant's document book. This is in the n ature of hearsay evidence and in addition it gives no date when the events it relates happened. They could have happened subsequent to the date the defendant left Russia and they could also have happened in other areas besides that occupied by Einsatzgruppe D. The Tribunal in its order of 9 October 1947 has rejected this type of evidence as inadmissible.
THE PRESIDENT: We do think that the lack of dates here make the document a little elucive.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Herr President, I am prepared to submit the original.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, does it have a date?
DR. ASCHENAUER: I have the original book in my office and can submit it to the Tribunal at any time just as it was multiplied.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, but I asked, does it have the date. A book can be printed at any time.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Well, at the moment I cannot answer this question but I can look it up any time.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then we will reserve our decision on that until we see the original book.
MR. WALTON: Document 41, the affidavit of Oskar Dankers.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I Haven't submitted that yet.
THE PRESIDENT: He hasn't submitted that, Mr. Walton.
MR. WALTON: Sorry, sir, I thought he submitted the entire document book.
THE PRESIDENT: No, he said 38, 39 and 40.
DR. ASCHENAUER: The prosecution considers in their indictment the war in the East as a normal war. Document No. 38 reveals that the German-Russian war is not a war in the sense of international law.
DR. ASCHENAUER: This document reveals that the partisan warfare which is being discussed by the prosecution, even if The Hague Convention of Warfare is applied in the case of Russia and the rules of warfare are applied according to their meaning, under no circum stances could the warfare be considered illegal; that, therefore, owing to the peculiarities in the territory where the Russian war was conducted, in view of the measures, the manner in which the war was conducted were justified which otherwise would have to be considered illegal or prohibited.
It is also shown that for the Russian warfare there were no limitations according to international law. Any means was permitted according to Soviet opinions as long as it would harm the enemy.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Aschenauer, do you intend now to argue from this thesis?
DR. ASCHENAUER: No, Your Honor, I am just quoting from the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Now you have indicated what it is, it is the expert opinion by this professor on international law, and then when you make your summation you will draw from this opinion such parts as you will need to support your argument. If you are going to argue it now then you are going to argue it twice. We know now what it is.
That is the purpose of talking about a document when you present it, to inform the Tribunal what it is.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Of course, Your Honor. In that case I would like to talk about the next document now.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. ASCHENAUER: According to Document Book II - in the Document Book II-A Document No. 42 and Document No. 43 are submitted as Exhibits No. 4 and 5, and I offer those numbers. These are excerpts from the Russian Encyclopedia which indicate the official notes of warfare of the Russians. I submit this document mostly because I want to offer that all that the Russian warfare had planned and the way it was conducted was known because these documents were made out before the year 1941.
MR. WALTON: The same objection, Your Honor, to both documents being discussed by the prosecution. The prosecution objects to Documents 42 and 43 in that they are treaties on partisan warfare methods. No evidence appears as to the qualifications of the authors as experts in this type of warfare, and as such they are purely hearsay. Nothing contained therein shows any justification for multiplicitous murder committed by German Einsatzgruppen or other crimes laid down by the charges in the indictment. No policies of the Russians on partisan warfare can set at naught the laws of all nations on the crime of murder. To allow these documents will serve only to clutter up the record and thus needlessly protract the proceedings in this case.
THE PRESIDENT: Strictly speaking, Dr. Aschenauer, the relevancy of these documents is not apparent. What the Russians intended to do in their partisan warfare can scarcely have any effect on whether multiplicitous murder is justified, or killing is justified or not. However, if you insist on it, they are already mimeographed; it can't harm anyone; the work is already done; so if you insist on giving
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, I have to do that. The subject of the theory of the prosecution is opposed to the theory of the defense the prosecution contends that this fight was part of a great fight between the races, of extermination of races, while we of the defense hold the opinion that the measures were carried out for security reasons, security reasons which were required in Russian warfare. The documents of the Russian Encyclopedia, the date of the publication is known and also the author. These are official documents and they prove that the German measures had their reasons.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the Russian Encyclopedia, Dr. Aschenauer?
DR. ASCHENAUER: From the Russian Enclopedia of the year 1937. Argunew is the author.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it something comparable to the Brittanica in English, if you are familiar with that work?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it is? Is it state sanctioned? I presume it is because everything in Russia is state sanctioned.
DR. ASCHENAUER: That is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. One reason why we would have difficulty in excluding this, especially so far as the present speaker is concerned, is that I went out pretty far in indicating what would be relevant. I said everything up to the social life of penguins, and this would certainly fall within that rather large circle, so the objection is overruled.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document No. 41 from the Document Book II is offered as Exhibit No. 6. It is to be used as evidence in how far the assumption of the emergency state in the state appears justified Owing to the acts of the Russians in the territory conquered by them, it can be shown clearly for the defendants what would have been the fate of their homeland if these Russian troops, who have committed those crimes, had come into this country.
MR. WALTON: Now, Your Honors, the prosecution objects to Document 41 on the basis of the decision rendered by this Tribunal on the date of October 9, 1947, and in the language of that decision when the same type of evidence was offered wherein, the alleged terror and persecution committed by Russians on Latvians in Latvia, is, as this Tribunal so succinctly stated in that order which I have referred to, and I quote, "an attempt to draw a red herring across the trail". The evidence to be considered at all must have some bearing on the issues drawn by the indictment, I have a copy of the Tribunal's order in my hand if they would like to see it.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, may I reply briefly? This document confirms the opinion of Dr. Maurach.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's find out who Oskar Dankers is. Who is Dankers?
DR. ASCHENAUER: That is General Dankers, the plenipotentiary in Latvia, a competent witness therefore, because he took part in these things.
THE PRESIDENT: The difficulty about this Dr. Aschenauer, is that there is nothing in this affidavit which says that the Jews were responsible for the bloody massacre described in it. It is something that happened between the Bolshevists and the Latvians.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, how could that be used as an argument that the Einsatzgruppe operating in that area had the right to kill Jews?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, this must be seen in the entire psychological connection which I have mentioned. What the Bolshevists did in Lithuania, in Finland, in Latvia and in Estonia, they also did in Eastern Germany after 1945, and those who fought in the East had to expect this, and therefore, the defendants doubtlessly, in view of all the measures taken, the Fuehrer Order, etc., had to consider the war-emergency status of the State which in their opinion caused these cruel measures.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but you are in effect telling us. A and B are having a bloody fight. C comes in and kills D. The Bolshevists and the Latvians are fighting. The Germans come in and kill the Jews. How do you connect up these two separate events?
DR. ASCHENAUER: The connection, therefore I said that these documents form an entirety, in the opinion of Dr. Maurach prove in how far the defendants could get the impression that the main bearers of these measures in the East were Jews.
THE PRESIDENT: Are Jews mentioned in this affidavit?
DR. ASCHENAUER: This affidavit mentions the active group of the NKWD, and it is a well known fact that this cannot be denied, as Dr. Maurach also says as a fact that the high leaders of this system unfortunately were Jews.
THE PRESIDENT: It would appear now that your original idea is the better one because if we let Dr. Aschenauer submit what he has to submit then Mr. Walton indicates his objections, then the court will have an opportunity to look them over and render its decision. I think we will save time and perhaps proceed a little more smoothly.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Then no decision is made about 41 yet?
THE PRESIDENT: We won't render any decision now, Dr. Aschenauer. We will let you submit your documents and then Mr. Walton will make his objections.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I now come to the Document Book II-B. The submission of the following documents is done because the attempt of understanding the actions which have taken place in the East and for the action of the defendants is not possible without realizing how for years the problem of Bolshevism was being taught to the German people. In this connection I submit as opinion the Document No. 58 as Exhibit No. 7. I point out that this-
THE PRESIDENT: Where is that, Dr. Aschenauer?
DR. ASCHENAUER: In Document Book II-B.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have that.
DR. ASCHENAUER: B for "Book".
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but I don't see the document number.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Isn't that in the English copy? Just a moment.
THE PRESIDENT: No, we have four documents but they are not numbered.
DR. ASCHENAUER: It is the first document. I quote from it.
THE PRESIDENT: Tell us where it is. According to the index here there are excerpts from Schacht, Hitler and Byrnes.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
DR. ASCHENAUER: And I am quoting an excerpt. It says in this document -
THE PRESIDENT: Indicate which one it is, Dr. Aschenauer, because the documents are not numbered in this book. You give an exhibit number and then we will have it, the document number and the exhibit number.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes. I introduce this document as Document No. 58 and offer it as Exhibit No. 7
THE PRESIDENT: You still haven't told us what it is because there are four here.
Which document?
DR. ASCHENAUER: It is the first document in Document Book II-B.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, it is the first. Then you have told us.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I quote from this document. "As ever Germany is being considered as the focus of the Occident in view of the Bolshevist attacks. In these lines I would only like to give my conviction that this crisis cannot be avoided and will not be avoided, and that Germany has the duty to protect its own existence, in view of this catastrophe, by all means, and to secure it and to protect themselves from it, and that owing to this false situation a number of consequences result which concern the most important tasks which were ever put to our people".
THE PRESIDENT: We didn't find what you were reading. You yet haven't told us who said this.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Who said it?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. ASCHENAUER: It says in the index: Memorandum by Adolf Hitler about the task of the Four Year Plan and that is the opinion concerning the Bolshevist problem, an opinion by Hitler which I described as Fuehrer opinion.
MR. WALTON: Your Honors, I think the compiler of the document book is the real person at fault. I seem to have in my document book a preface page and then in the very next document is an excerpt from the newspaper "Voelkischer Beobachter", and so they left the document which Dr. Aschenauer is now speaking about out of the book when they compiled it. All you have, if yours is like mine, is the preface page or the indentification page. You have got nothing that follows it, and, of course, the prosecution will have to object because it is not on notice. I don't know what the contents of it are. That is not Dr. Aschenauer's fault, but it certainly can't be answered.
DR. ASCHENAUR: I am sorry. It was a mistake by the translation department.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, that was causing all the trouble, Dr. Aschenauer. It apparently is not in our book. Let's give it a number anyway. What exhibit number did you give that?
DR. ASCHENAUER: I gave this document the exhibit No. 58, or rather Exhibit No. 7.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, proceed.
DR. ASCHENAUER: The next document I am talking about is the second one in this document book. In the index it says "from the Proclamation of Adolf Hitler of 22 June 1941, Boelkischer Beobachter of 23 June 1941", This document, No. 59, I submit as Exhibit No. 8. I quote: "Thus I still believed to the last moment to have served the peace in this territory, even if thereby I incurred a heavy personal obligation. But in order to get a final solution of these problems and also to obtain enlightenment as to the Russian attitude towards the Reich, as well as under the pressure of the ever increasing mobilization on our eastern frontier, I invited Mr. Molotov to come to Berlin." defendants could h ave received the impression of an aggressive war, or rather whether the defendants had to get the impression that this was a war of defense; to decide, whether this last question was described correctly by the German side, I, want to submit as a supplement the Documents N os. 60 and 61 as Exhibits Nos. 9 and 10. It is a short excerpt from the book by James Byrnes, "Speaking Frankly", in English and German.
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Speight asks, is there any evidence that Ohlendorf knew of this declaration by Hitler?
DR. ASCHENAUER: These statements were made at the time on the radio and in the newspapers so that it is without doubt that Ohlendorf knew these statements by Hitler.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, would you state as a fact that Ohlendorf knew of these declarations?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Ohlendorf knew Hitler's proclamation and from this proclamation and others he had to assume that this was a war of defense.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I now submit Document Book No. 3. In this document book the relationship between the Wehrmacht, or the Commander in Chief of the Army with the Einsatzkommandos or the Einsatzkommandos is being clarified. In these document books the question of responsibility and the question of knowledge is being gone into for the heads of the Army concerning those actions which are under judgment here. This question of responsibility and of knowledge is of importance for the problem of the possibility of resistance against the order given.
In this connection, I offer Document No. 50, in the German text page 20 of the Document Book as Exhibit No. 11. This document is to be considered the basic document for the relation between the Army and the Einsatzgruppen. It outlines the responsibility of the Commander in Chief as the person with executive power. I quote:
"If a theatre of operations has been determined, the authority to exercise the executive power within this theatre of operations is without a further order conferred on the Commander in Chief of the Army and on the Army Commanders.
"The Commanders in Chief holding executive power can, effective for the theatre of operations enact regulations having the force of law, institute Special Courts, and give orders to the authorities and offices within whose jurisdiction the theatre of operations is, except the Supreme Reich Authorities, the Highest Prussian State Authorities and the Reichsleitung of the NSDAP. The authority to give orders has priority over the instructions issued by other superior offices."
Document No. 51, which I offer as Exhibit 12, clarifies the subordination relationship in units in the operational territory. I quote:
"The Commander in Chief of the Army or his subordinate agencies are subordinate to the Army in the operational territory of the Army and they are subordinate to the Commander in Chief in tactical questions.
"The offices and troops of other Army units are also under the command of the Commander in Chief in tactical questions.
"The Commander in Chief or the Commander in Chief of the Army, if a state of defense or of war should occur has the right to exercise executive power in the operational territory according to the R*ich Law of Defense."
Document No. 44 I offer as Exhibit No. 13. It is a decree about the carrying out of the war jurisdiction in the area of Barbarossa and about the special measures of the troops. This decree clarifies the question whether civilian persons of enemy nationality could be subject to the competency of the war jurisdiction. It clarifies the question of the Supreme Commander as Supreme legal authority.
Document No. 45 I offer as Exhibit No. 14. In it the common basis for the treatment of political commissars is indicated. I quote from this top secret matter:
"In this war, indulgence and consideration for International Law with respect to those elements is uncalled for. They are a danger to our own security and the speedy pacification of the conquered territories.
"The political commissars are the originators of barbarous and Asiatic methods of fighting. Proceedings, therefore, must be taken against them immediately and directly, with all severity.
"These commissars are not recognized as soldiers; the protection accorded prisoners of war under International Law has no application to them. After screening has been carried out they are to the liquidated.
"Commissars who have been caught in the rear zone of an Army because of suspicious behaviour are to be handed over to the Einsatzgruppe responsible, to the Einsatzkommandos or the Security Police."
Document No. 46 is offered as Exhibit No. 15. The subject of evidence is the same. This document is submitted in order to show how the order was distributed.
Document No. 47 I submit as Exhibit No. 16. I herewith introduce a basic order by the Wehrmacht, which the Wehrmacht thought they could consider justified according to the situation. I quote:
"The troops available for the protection of the Conquered Eastern Territory are adequate in view of the extant of this area only if all resistance is not revenged by legal punishment of the guilty but if the Occupying Power spreads abroad terrir - the only thing likely to rob the population of all desire for insubordination.
"The Commanders concerned, are, with the troops at their disposal, to be made responsible for peace in their areas. Not in the request for further security forces, but in the use of appropriate Draconic measures the commanders must find the means of keeping their security areas in order."
Document No. 48 I offer as Exhibit No. 17. I quote from this order of the Wehrmacht:
"As a matter of principle it must be said that Jews and Gypsies in general represent an element of insecurity and thus a danger to public order and safety. It is the Jewish intellect which has brought about this war and which must be annihilated. The Gypsy, because of his internal and external make-up cannot be a useful member of a people's community. It has been found that the Jewish element participates considerably in the leadership of the bands and that Gypsies in particular are responsible for special atrocities and for the communication systems."
Document No. 49 I offer as Exhibit No. 18. An order by the Wehrmacht reads: "I order the immediate arrest of all Jews and Gypsies as hostages."
Document No. 52 I offer as Exhibit No. 19. I quote from it:
"In the East, this manner of fighting a so-called partisan war, already last winter had led to a considerable decrease of our fighting power, has cost the lives of numerous German soldiers, railroaders, workers of the organization Todt, the Labor Service, and has extremely decreased the performance of transportation for the maintenance of the fighting ability of the troops; it has even disrupted the latter for days. The successful continuation of this type of warfare or even its intensification may possibly lead to a serious crisis at one or the other sector of the front. Many measures against this cruel, as well as treacherous sabotage activity, fail simply because the German Officer and his soldiers have no conception of the extent of the danger they face, and thus they individually do not act against these enemy groups as much as it is necessary to help the most forward front and thereby the entire war effort."