THE PRESIDENT: I think, Dr. Nelte, you had really finished with your witnesses, had you not?
DR. NELTE (counsel for defendant Keitel): I believe that is right, but I must make some general reservations on what I may have to say after the end of the Russian case and whether I will have to call for one or two other witnesses I would merely like to ask one or two questions of the Tribunal with reference to the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
DR. NELTE: Those documents which interest me with reference to Keitel. The Tribunal knows the main line of my defense, and so as to prove errors which have been made by the prosecution, in particular with reference to the jurisdiction and responsibility of the OKW and the Defendant Keitel, which has often been mistaken by the Prosecution, I can refer to a very large number of documents presented by the Prosecution. as evidence. These documents are already in the possession of the Tribunal, and I request your examination and decision regarding the necessity of my quoting such documents in my presentation, without it being necessary to quote them in detail or to submit them judicially. Tribunal to the fact that after the Tribunal has been informed about the structure of the German army and the jurisdiction of various departments, it will be able to decide for themselves which of the documents which have been presented by the Prosecution can be regarded as evidence regarding the responsibilities of the defendant Keitel and about such documents which are not suitable for that purpose. will examine a documents carefully, even so far as the Defense are not presenting such document, and if you will consider the very large number of documents, of which there are several thousands, the Tribunal will no doubt realize that I car not quote all the important documents completely in my presentation.
That is question Number One. regarding my presentation which is probably of general importance. following statement, and I quote:
" The fourth and last chapter will have the following heading: The Administrative Organization. I can state that the French delegation has examined for the Fourth Chapter more than 2,000 documents, and I am referring to the German original documents. Of those, approximately 50 were retained. appears to be no doubt that these 50 chosen documents are only important from the point of view of implicating the defendant. On 11 February, if I remember correctly, I addressed myself to the French Prosecution with a request to place at my disposal all the remaining 1,950 documents, so that I could examine them. I mean those documents which the French Prosecution did not use.
Up to now, I have remained without any reply to this request. The Tribunal will, no doubt, appreciate the difficulties of my position. I know that there are documents which contain, no doubt, a number of facts useful for the Defense and yet I can not quote these documents in detail. that the Prosecution should place at my disposal those documents which are in their possession.
THE PRESIDENT: With reference to these particular documents that you are asking for, are you going to say anything about them?
DR. NELTE: I do not know the contents of these documents. I only know that the French Prosecution -
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you wish to deal with that now, I will ask the French Prosecutor to answer what you have said.
DR. NELTE: Certainly, it is entirely up to the tribunal to decide on that Question in a closed session or to make a decision right now.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think we had better hear from the French Prosecutor now.
M. DUBOST: A certain number of documents were doubtful, and they were in our hands at the time that we were beginning to prepare our prosecution.
We have eliminated all documents which could not bear serious critical examination We carefully cited all the documents and threw out all those that were considered to be insufficient proof. Those documents which are referred to by my colleagues have been put aside, or, if I recollect correctly, three or four which I can not determine at the moment have been thrown our. In these conditions, we have not put at the disposal of the Defense 1950 document We handed over to the Court and to the Defense 500 documents which in themselves seemed to us to have sufficient probitive value. to have handed to them various documents which have been thrown out by themselves as not having sufficient probitive value. As far as I am concerned, I must oppose this application because the result would be to take into account documents which did not conform to the standards that we had set.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but, M. Dubost, the position is this: There were a large number of documents which the Counsel for the French Prosecution said that they had examined, and the French Prosecution, in the exercise of their discretion, thought it unnecessary to refer to more than a certain number of them, but it is only the French Prosecution who have exercised their discretion about those documents, and what Dr. Nelte is asking is to see them for the purpose of seeing whether there as anything in the documents which assisted his case. Would the French Prosecution have any objection to that? of the French Prosecution, but those that are in their possession, would the French Prosecution object to Dr. Nelte seeing those?
M. DUBOST: May I remind, the Tribunal that the documents which we rejected were not rejected as useless to the debates, but as not presenting sufficient guarantee as to their origin or as to the conditions under which they were obtained and as to their probative value. The Tribunal will no doubt remember that a certain number of these documents were thrown out by the Court itself. Those that they did not take up are of the same character as those documents which were thrown out. We did not bring them forward because we could not tell you where, how, and under (what conditions they had been discovered. For the most part, they are documents that fell into the hands of combat troops during the war, and under the terms of jurisprudence laid down by the Tribunal do not offer sufficient guarantee; and in the state in which they are at present in my possession I am ready to communicate them to Defense Counsel, but I do not think they will attach any higher value to them than I did.
THE PRESIDENT: That may very well be. I think that all Dr. Nelte wants is to see any documents which you have brought to see whether he can find anything in them that he thinks may help the case of the Defendant for whom he appears, and I understand you wouldn't have any objection to his doing that.
M. DUBOST: I have no objection in principle. I would only answer the Defense Counsel that those documents have been rejected partly by the Court when I presented them.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, of course, it wouldn't apply to documents which have been rejected by the Court. Well-
Very well. We will not decide the matter new. We will consider it.
DR. NELTE: Would the Court announce their decision regarding the first question which I brought up, namely, whether it is sufficient hat I refer to documents which have been presented by the Prosecution without submitting them myself for judicial notice of the Court?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: On that point I would like to support Dr. Nelte's suggestion.
If a document has already been put in, I
THE PRESIDENT: I think that I have said on a variety of
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not know whether it would be convenient if I indicated to Dr. Nelte the views of the Prosecution on
THE PRESIDENT: I think it would shorten things if you would.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: A considerable number of the documents therefore Dr. Nelte may comment in accordance with your ruling.
of Defendants or intended witnesses: documents 12, 13, 22, 23, 24, Dr. Blaha, my friend, Mr. Dodd, adopted the practice of asking the witness, "Is your affidavit true?"
and then reading the affidavit to save time.
The Prosecution have no objection to Dr. Nelte pursuing
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. You mean that, if the witness is Feb - A - O'B - 3 here, you have no objection to Dr. Nelte reading the affidavit and the witness being then liable to cross-examination?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The witness will say, "I agree; I verify the facts that are in my affidavit."
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think it might save considerable time in the examination-in-chief, and we should all be prepared to co-operate in that.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, is Dr. Nelte agreeable to that course? Is that what he means?
DR. NELTE: Yes, absolutely.
THE PRESIDENT: Possibly, Sir David, if the affidavit were presented to the Prosecution, they might be able to say that they did not wish to cross-examine. That would save the witness being here or being brought here.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It might be in the case of Dr. Lehmann. I think all the other cases are either Defendants or witnesses with regard to whom there are certain points which the Prosecution would like to ask. their being used: 18, 26 and 27. sure at the moment, but it may be that Dr. Nelte will explain how he wishes to use them, and that may remove the difficulty of the Prosecution. If the Tribunal will be good enough to look at 1 and 2: 1 is an expert's opinion on state laws concerning the Fuehrer State, and the importance of the Fuehrer order, and document 2 is an order of the Fuehrer number 1. the Charter, the Prosecution will object.
That is a question of superior orders.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If they are only used to explain the background as a matter of history, that may be a different matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Before you pass -
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: -- a need for a ministry of rearmament, taken from --
THE PRESIDENT: Even so, Sir David, in your submission, ought we to accept the opinion of an expert on such a point?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, Your Honor. We don't at all. I am afraid that my second remark really applied to the order of the Fuehrer. That might be used as a background or it might be used for purposes of mitigation or explanation of how a thing took place, but I respectfully agree that the expert's opinion on state laws cannot be used with regard to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Of course, the law of any other state may be a question of fact as far as the Tribunal is concerned just as it would be a question of fact in an English court: What is the law of another state?" As I say, I Want to reserve emphatically the position of Article 8 With regard to these two documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, Documents 10 and 11 dealt with rearmament in other countries, I don't want to prevent the defense using illustrations, but again I reserve the position most emphatically that rearmament in other countries cannot be an excuse for aggressive war and could be irrelevant on that point. General Temperley, who are both ex-officers, win were journalists during this period. As for as any question of fact that is stated in these books, if Dr. Nelte will let us know what the passage is, we shall see whether we could admit it, but the general views of Major General Fuller and Major General Temperley we would submit to be irrelevant.
Then, 19, 20, and 20 are books about Austria. Again the Prosecution reserves the position that the earlier state of opinion in Austria with regard to an anschluss is irrelevant when considering the question of the aggressive action in breach of the Treaty of 1936 which took place in 1938.
I think, My Lord, that I have now dealt with all the documents and, as I say, they fall into these four groups; with regard to three of which there is nothing really between us in principle and, with regard to the fourth, the Prosecution wants to reserve these various points which I have mentioned. Again I want to make clear that the Prosecution does net object to Dr. Nelte obtaining any of these books for the purpose of preparing his case, but we want them to make clear at the earliest opportunity what their position is with regard to their use.
DR. NELTE: With reference to the first three categories, I am glad to say that we agree and I can, therefore, refer to that category which begins with the two documents, Nos. 1 and 2. One of them is important principle questions in this trial which to start with appears to be an entirely legal problem. It is the question of the so-called Leader State (Fuehrersteat) and Leader Order (Fuehrer Order). This question has, however, other important actual significance in this trial since, for instance, the defendant Keitel, because of his exposed position, was to a very considerable degree subject to the effect of this Leader State. He acted because he was continuously closely attached to the incarnation f this leadership principle, none other than Hitler. It isn't as if Article 8 of the Charter would be uneffected by this. Evidence would merely have to be collected for the fact, I assume, that Article 8 cannot be applied to this particular case.
Regarding the Leader Order No. 1, Document No. 2, the Tribunal will be able to judge whether this has importance as evidence at the time when the Tribunal hears this Order.
This is the warning in this Order: Nobody must have knowledge of secret matters which do not fall into his own sphere of influence and his tasks; nobody should hear more than he must know for a fulfillment of the tasks which are given to him; nobody must know earlier about facts than is necessary for the carrying out of the tasks given to him; no one should pass on secret matters earlier than it was absolutely necessary to other departments under his command.
State, it seems to me that this, in connection with Fuehrer Order No. 1, should serve as evidence for the fact that a conspiracy in the sense of the Prosecution is not possible in that conception. That is the reason why I request the Tribunal to admit those two documents. Document No. 10 and Document No. 11, and to a certain degree Document 16, are submitted because we are trying to prove that the principles which the defendant Keitel as a soldier in the German Army considered good and proper, namely, rearmament up to the point of an expected position of Germany amongst the other nations; that these principles were not only a requirement for a German, but that even foreigners and important persons at that did understand that and approved, of it. This part of my case will be served by the submission of an Article of 2 British, a French and an American author of military standing, military personalities who seem to me to have a name as military writers. Also in this category falls the article "Total War", written by Major General Fuller, which is my Document No. 15, as well as the book of the British Major General Temperley, "The Whispering Gallery of Europe". Mr. Fuller, for instance, writes in his article:
"It is nonsense to state that he, Hitler, wanted the war. A war could not bring him the reincarnation of his nation. What he needed was an honorable, secure peace." tention of the planning aggressive wars was contradictory if one considers the intentions of Hitler and the other National Socialists as honest. and for the purpose of proving that, he wishes to refer to the opinion of important persons abroad whose names have great significance. of the Prosecution to state their objections.
THE PRESIDENT: You mentioned Documents 19 to 21, which documents were meant to reveal a certain state of opinion in Austria.
DR. NELTE: Yes. Those documents -- No.19 dealing with the question of the anschluss of Austria and its cultural and economic difficulties; and Document 20, the way toward the anschluss and the question of the anschluss in the international press. These documents are meant to prove that the defendant was entitled to assume that the vast majority of Austrians desired that Austria should join Germany. These articles and memoranda of the Austrian-German Peoples Union, the president of which was the Social Democrat member of the German Parliament, Loewe.
THE PRESIDENT: That concludes the documents, does it not?
DR. NELTE: I should like to make an additional application to the Tribunal, which refers to documents which I have been unable to mention earlier since they weren't mentioned until the session of February 22nd. This application of mine I shall now submit. It refers to eleven documents, all of which were presented during the session of Friday and which were evidence of participation of Keitel in the crime during the retreat and slave workers. From the contents of these documents which were submitted by the Prosecution, it becomes apparent what I have already submitted to the Tribunal, namely, that a large number of the accusations of the Prosecution are due to the fact that every document which in any way dealt with military matters was simply credited to the OKW and Keitel.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, as I understand it, all these documents have already been put into evidence.
DR. NELTE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then they fall into the category to which Sir David agreed. They could be touched on by you.
DR. NELTE: That is correct, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you made application in connection with them?
DR. NELTE: When I made this, additional application I had not yet received Sir David's agreement. Apart from that, it appears to me to be a particularly interesting and convincing case because during one day eleven documents were submitted to the Tribunal, all of which contain accusations against Keitel, but all of which proved by their contents that they do not refer to him or the OKW.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. There is only one other thing that I wanted to ask you. You asked at an earlier stage for the evidence from Ambassador Messersmith and Otto Wettberg and in both cases the Tribunal granted you interrogatories. I don't know whether you are withdrawing your application in respect to those cases or whether you have seen the answers to the interrogatories.
DR. NELTE: I have, in accordance with the suggestions of the Tribunal, sent those interrogatories to Ambassador Messersmith and Otto Wettberg. In accordance with what reply I shall receive from those two witnesses, I shall then submit them or not.
THE PRESIDENT: The application for Otto Wettberg?
DR. NELTE: Yes, sir, but I haven't received them back.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
The exhibit No.1, would you explain a little bit more what No.1 is going to be? It appears to be the opinion of an expert witness on the meaning of the Fuehrer precept. Is that what you intend?
DR. NELTE: Yes. It is a legislative article or article on the structure and significance of what is known as Fuehrerstaat (Leadership State).
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: May it please your Honors, it is my duty to submit to the Tribunal evidence on the last count of the Soviet prosecutor's statements.
"Crimes against Humanity" are foreseen by Count 4 of the Indictment and by Article 6, and in particular in subparagraph "C" of Article 6 of the Charter. the territories of the temporarily occupied districts of the Soviet Union, Poland, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Greece.
"Crimes against Humanity", just as other crimes of the Fascists which have been submitted to the Tribunal by my colleagues, came from the criminal basis of Fascist mentality by the seizing of considerable districts in the East and in the West and by putting into slavery of the population.
These crimes were put into effect as a result of a cannibalistic theory of the Fascists.
Moreover, the concept of "Crimes against Humanity" is included in nearly all the crimes of the German Fascists. Thus a major part of probative facts which corroborate the commission by the German Fascists of these crimes has already been submitted to the Tribunal as regards war Crimes against the civilian population. practices of war, as well as the mass extermination of the prisoners of war, are also in themselves very grave Crimes against Humanity.
Moreover, the concept "Crimes against Humanity" is considerably wider in its scope than any of the crimes of the German Fascists, the proofs of which have been hitherto submitted to the Tribunal. appearance of the Swastika on official buildings, the inhabitants of the temporarily occupied Eastern European countries were placed, one might say, in the ante-chamber of death. renounce all that which, as a result of centuries of human development, had become an integral part of humanity. forced to pass through numerous and painful phases, insulting to human dignity, which constitute, in their main features, the charge which we entitle "Crimes against Humanity." number or by sewing on their sleeves a particular marking. They were deprived of the right to speak or to read in their own tongue. They were deprived of their home and family and were deprived of their country by transferring them by force to places distant several hundreds of thousands of kilometres.
They were deprived of the right to have children. They were mocked and insulted. Their feelings and beliefs were jeered at and scoffed. And only then were they deprived of their last possession, their lives.
exhaustion of the victims of Fascism. They also noted a profound state of moral depression among those people who, thanks to this or that accidental circumstance, succeeded in escaping the Fascist terror. once again could return to normal conceptions and actions and to the human rules of human society. It is difficult to determine in legal terns this moment of transgression, but in my opinion, it is of the greatest import for the incrimination of the principal war criminals. submitted to the Tribunal as USSR Exhibit No. 93. The quotation which I should like now to refer to is on page 10 of the document book. of the statement of Jacob Vernic, a carpenter from Warsaw, who was interned during a year in the extermination camp of Treblinka. Sometimes in the German documents it is called "Treblinka 2" and "Treblinka 5", but it is the same camp. It was one of the most terrible points of mass extermination of people created by German Fascism. In my statement I will submit to the Tribunal proof connected with the existence of this camp. This is what Vernic said while presenting to the Polish Government a report on Treblinka, which, as he stated, was the only reason for his continuing to live his pitiful life:
"Awake or asleep I see terrible visions of thousands of people calling for help, begging for life and mercy. I have lost my family. I have myself led them to death and I have myself built the death chambers in which they were murdered. I'm afraid of everything. I fear that what I have seen is marked on my face. Old and broken life is a heavy burden but I must carry on and live to tell the world what I have seen of German crimes and barbarism," of death. But were they alone victims of this fate? An analysis of probative facts connected with the crimes of the German Fascists were irrefutable testimony to the fact that the same fate was shared not only by those who were sent to special extermination camps, but all those who became the victims of these criminals in the occupied countries of Eastern Europe.
out of the report of the Extraordinary State Commission on the crimes committed in the Town of Orel and Orel District. In the text of this document there is a special report of a famed Russian scientist, a doctor, and president of the Academy of Medical Science, member of the Extraordinary State Commission, Academic Bourdenko. The tribunal will this report on page 14 of the Document Book, paragraph 6.
"The scenes," says Bourdenko "surpassed the wildest imagination. Our joy at the sight of the delivered people was obscured by the horror of their expression. This led one to reflect - what was the matter? Evidently, the sufferings they had undergone had identified the concept of life and death. I observed these people during throe days; I bandaged them. I evacuated them but their stare of fixity did not change, and something similar could be noticed during the first days on the faces of the doctors."
I will not dwell upon extracts from "Mein Kampf" or the "Myth of the Twentieth Century", which are already known to the Tribunal who are interested in the first place, in the criminal practices of the German Fascist fiends. victims of Fascism. Death could come unexpectedly, together with an appearance at the given point of this for that Sonderkommando, but, simultaneously, death could come for any action according to certain acts which have received the mock title of "German fascist Laws." I and other members of the Soviet Prosecution have already quoted numerous examples of these terroristic laws, directives of the German Fascists. I do not wish to repeat myself, but I wish to beg the permission of the Tribunal to quote one of those documents as it concerns all the temporarily seized eastern territories. The only justification for their publication of this document was for its author, the defendant Rosenberg: the fact that these temporarily, occupied districts were inhabited by "Non-Germans". This document is the characteristic item, the best evidence of the persecution of the people for racial or national or political motives.
I beg the Tribunal to add this document to the record. The document is USSR Exhibit No. 395. This order was issued on the 17th of February 1942 and is the so-called order supplementing the penal directives for the eastern territories. The Tribunal will find this document on pages 19 and 20 of the document book. I will read this document in full, beginning with paragraph 1.
"The death penalty or, in lesser cases, penal servitude would be inflicted upon those who will use violence against the German Empire or against the authority established in the occupied territories. Those who will commit violence against a German subject or person of German nationality for his belonging to this German nationality; against those who use violence against a serviceman of the German Army or Non-military organization, such as the German police, including the auxiliary forces, the labor forces, the labor service of the German authorities or its institutions, the organizations of the NSDAP; against those who appeal or incite to disobedience regarding orders or directives issued by the German authorities or who premeditatively inflicts damage to the enterprises, to German buildings or institutions or things which are utilized by the latter or for public use; against those who are accomplices of anti-Germany tendencies or organizationally helps units prohibited by the German authorities; against those who take part in hostile inciting activity and reveals anti-German views or by his behavior diminishes or inflicts damage to the authority or good of the German people; against those who premeditatively commit larceny--"
THE PRESIDENT: Have you read this before?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: I referred to these telegrams, but I believe that it was not yet read into this record.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: It may be that similar orders were read. They may be the orders of Frank or other orders because they resemble this order, but I don't think that this one has been read. I do not find it has been read.
" --or thereby inflicts damage to the general German interests or to the possessions of the German or a person of German nationality."
Paragraph 2:
"The death penalty and, in lesser cases, penal servitude is also inflicted to those who agree to commit such an action foraeen by Paragraph 1; who enters into serious negotiations on that subject; who offers his services or accepts a similar proposal, as well as those who possess accurate information on this action or its intention, when it could still be averted, wilfully abstains from warning prematurely the German authorities of this plot on the part of a certain person."
Paragraph 3:
"A death penalty will also punish those crimes that are not for seen by Paragraphs 1 and 2, if, according to the general German Criminal, Laws and to the directives of the German authorities, it does not entail the death penalty but testifies to particular base convictions or as a particular grave offense of other reasons. In these cases, the death penalty is also permissible regarding the children who have committed these grave crimes."
Paragraph 4:
"If there is insufficient justification for the judging by military courts, their verdict will be pronounced by special courts. This does not concern special instructions issued for the armed forces."
This order of Rosenberg's was only one of the links in the chain of crimes committed by the leaders of the German Fascism and directed towards the extermination of the Slav people.
I pass on to the first part of my statement which is entitled "The Extermination of Slav People." In the second port of this statement I will show how this criminal destruction of Slow persons was put into effect. I will quote data from the report of the Yugoslav Government, which is on page 56 of the Russian text or 76 of the document book.
" Apart from the 250,000 Yugoslava who died in battle, the occupants exterminated at least one and a half to two million people, mostly women, children, and aged persons. Out of the fifteen million pre-war Yugoslav population, for a relatively short period of four years, almost fourteen per cent of the entire population was exterminated."
36 and 37 of the Russian text, there is proof of a plan for forceful ecpulsion of all the Czechs and the establishment of Germans in Czechoslovakia, which was planned by the Hitlerite criminals. The report quotes statements of Karl Herma Frank, who admitted the existence of this plan and declared that he, Frank, had compiled a memorandum in which he objected to similar plans. I quote excerpts from the statement of Hermann Frank, which the Tribunal can find on page 37 of this report of the Czechoslovakian Book.
"I consider this plan senseless as, in my opinion, the expense created by these measures would seriously impede the live functions of Czechoslovakia and Moravia for various reasons of geo-political transportation, industrial, and other character, and the immediate filing of this empty space by our German colonists was impossible." by various methods, among which an important part was played by the driving of people to an extreme state of exhaustion by labor and their subsequent extermination through hunger. The criminals quite consciously envisaged the killing of millions of people by hunger, and this can be proved by a number of document which have already been quoted by me or by my colleagues, namely, the diary of Hans Frank. I will quote a few short extracts out of his document. Here is an excerpt concerning the conference held by the Government on the 7th of December 1942 in Krakow.
first column of the text, last paragraph:
"If the new code-plan is put into effect, this means that in Warsaw and in the neighborhood and its surroundings alone, 500,000 people will no longer receive food." conference held on 24 August 1942. That is an excerpt on page 90 of the document book, first paragraph of the text:
"Dr. Frank: With all the difficulties which you find here relative to diseased workers, and the collapse of their union, you must keep in mind it is much better if the Poles collapse than if the Germans collapse. Let it only be mentioned if the Jews do not die of hunger, we shall be condemning one to two million Jews to die of starvation. This is correct. Of course, if the Jews are not to die from starvation, this will hasten activation of anti-Jewish measures." political leaders of the Labor Front of the Government General, on 14 December 1942 this Tribunal will find on page 89 of the document book, 2nd column of the text, second paragraphs:
"We are faced with the following problem: Will we be able to, beginning from the 2nd of February, to deprive the two million persons who live in this district, two million persons of non-German nationality, food-supplies?" speaking of crimes against humanity, referred to notes given by Martin Bormann, and the notes were presented to the Court under Exhibit No. USSR-172 can find on page 97 of the document book, last paragraph:
"Similarly the Fuehrer said again, the last German workman, or the last German peasant, will always stand ten percent in economic level, and must stand higher than any Pole."
How was this actually accepted? I would like to show how these statements of Hitler were put into effect by the defendant Frank in the territory of Poland.
I beg the Tribunal to refer to the original German document. Among the Fascist institutes which carried out the various scientific experiments by the German criminals there was created a special institute which investigated economic life. This institute issued as documentary importance a Polish document for war industry for Upper Silesia. A similar investigation was carried on by this Frank institute for determination of the reason for the ruination of or destruction of Polish workers. We can judge the aims of this investigation by two short excerpts. On page 39 of the original of this document we read -- the Tribunal will find this on page 101 of the document book, second paragraph. I submit this document as USSR Exhibit No.282. This quotation is on page 101 of the document book, third paragraph.
"No humanitarian tendency motivates this investigation." third paragraph, of the document book. It is said:
"We raise our voices not in defense of the Poles but in order to prevent the military production which must supply the Wehrmacht." characterizes this investigation, I would like to quote a few excerpts which show the status of the Polish worker and the practical realization by the defendant Frank of these directives of Hitler's. I quote on page 38 of the original copy of the document, which corresponds with page 101 of the document book:
"Information concerning the condition of the Polish population' and the opinions after the measures which are to be taken there. The measure agrees on one point, which can be summarized as follows: The Poles are starving. Similar information concerning these conclusions was where one of our informers visited a war production plant during the midday meal. The workers are standing apathetically or sitting, and some of them are smoking. By observation the informer states that out of eighty persons only one had a piece of bread for lunch. The others had no food whatever, and they were all working ten to twelve hours a day." 102 of the document book, is this quotations: