was beaten or hanged or executed. guests a view into the real concentration camp?
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will not sit in open session tomorrow, Saturday, and will only sit in the morning on Monday because there is work to be done in the closed session tomorrow and on Monday afternoon. I thought it would be convenient for Counsel to know that.
(Whereupon at 1705 hours the hearing of the Tribunal adjourned to reconvene at 1000 hours, Monday, January 14, 1946).
Military Tribunal, in the matter of: The
THE PRESIDENT: Would you have the witness brought in? I think one of the Defendants' Counsel was about to cross-examine him. The Defendants' Counsel don't wish to cross-examine any further?
DR. BABEL (Counsel for the SS and SD): Attorney Babel, who is defending the SS and the SD. I'd like to put the following question to the witness, I need to ask these questions in order for my own information and to clear up previous questions.
CROSS EXAMINATION OF DR. FRANZ BLAHA (Resumed) QUESTIONS BY DR. BABEL: my opinion should be exactly conversant with conditions as they were, and his memory seems to be excellent, as shown by his testimony. Do you know how the connection was of the inmates in the various periods of time, and how these relationships changed, depending on the political and criminal -- what was the number of the political and the criminal inmates, about?
A In Dachau it wasn't always the same. There were political and actactual criminals and the so-called "asocial" elements. Naturally, and I am just speaking about the German prisoners, all other nations were considered political prisoners. Only the German inmates wore divided into red, green, and black prisoners. The largest percentage of the German inmates were political inmates.
Q What do you mean by the largest percentage or largest number? About half, three-quarters, one-fourth?
A I am sorry, I didn't hear you.
Q Can you give me figures? About how many of these--half, threequarters, or how many? Can you give me an approximate number?
A I can say about 5,000 German prisoners. Out of that number, 3,000 were political prisoners; about 2,000 were considered green and black.
Q What was it during the total four or five year period? the Germans and other new ones replaced them. In the last year there were always more and more political prisoners, for many of the green were taken to the front.
Q How was the number, the total number, in 194, 1943, and 1945?
A Do you mean all of them?
Q Yes. I mean the total number.
A In 1941 we had 9,000; in 1943 we had between 15 to 20,000; and toward the end of 1944 until the beginning of 1945 we had more than 70 to 80,000.
Q Then one more thing; You mentioned, you testified that you yourself worked in the plantations. What do you mean by that?
A By the plantations? It was a large estate of the SS where many herb, medicinal herbs and things of that sort were raised.
Q Was this plantation inside the camp? that these armament activities were within the camp and partially without; is that true?
A Yes. First they were outside the camp. Then after the bombings certain parts of this work were moved into the inner parts of the concentration camp.
Q Then, regarding the guards: What was the number; give me the number, about, in 1941? there were besides that a large garrison of SS, and from time to time, when it was necessary, from the other departments of the SS guards were taken for this duty. It varies, and it depended on how many guards were needed. For regular duty there were about three companies.
Q And this guard duty--did they serve guard in these armament works?
A Yes. Every works command had a commando leader. They were drawn from this guard, and these guards--the workers were taken by these guards to their place of work and they were returned by the guards to their place of habitat. that these guards in their daily activities mistreated inmates?
A Yes; many.
Q Often?
Q What reason? the commandant.
Q You said you were busy and active?
A Did you have opportunity to make these observations?
A Yes. I conducted many autopsies, and the people who had been either shot at work or who had been beaten to death I dissected these bodies and made reports on these autopsies.
Q You said they were shot. Did you see these shootings yourself?
Q How do you know that? work was to ascertain the cause of death, whether the man was beaten to death, whether the skull was fractured, ribs were fractured, internal hemmorhage, shootings, and a report had to be made--an official report--sometimes; but this was very seldom. When an investigation was made I was called in as witness.
DR. BABEL: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, do you wish to reexamine the witness.
MR. DODD: I have no further questions to ask the witness at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other member of the prosecuting staff want to reexamine? Colonel Pokrowski?
COLONEL POKROWSKI: At this stage of the trial I have no more questions to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness can go.
MR. DODD: I should like to ask the Tribunal at this time to take judicial notice of the findings and the sentences imposed by the Military Court at Dachau, Germany on the 2nd of -
THE PRESIDENT: What date?
MR. DODD: 13th day of December 1945. The findings were dated the 12th and the sentences on the 13th.
I have here a certified copy of the findings and the sentences, which I should like to offer as USA Exhibit No. 664.
THE PRESIDENT: Have opies of this been given to the Defendants?
MR. DODD: Yes. They have been sent to the Defendants Counsel Information Room.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. DODD: I have one other matter that I should like to take up very briefly before the Tribunal this morning. It is concerned with a matter that arose after I had left the courtroom to return to the United States. On the 13th of December we offered in evidence Document No. 3421-PS, and USA Exhibit 252 and 254. They were, respectively, the Court will recall, sections of human skin taken from human bodies and preserved, and a human head, the head of a human being, which had been preserved. On the 14th day of December, according to the record, Counsel for the Defendant Kaltenbrunner addressed the Tribunal and complained that the affidavit which was offered of one Pfaffenberger failed to state that the camp commandant at Buchenwald, one Koch, along with his wife, was condemned to death for having committed precisely these atrocities, this business of tanning the skin and preserving the head. And in the course of the discussion before the Tribunal the record reveals that Counsel for the Defendant Bormann, in addressing the Tribunal, stated that it was highly probable that the Prosecution knew that the German authorities had objected to this camp commandant -
THE PRESIDENT: (interposing) Too fast.
MR. DODD: I am sorry. -- had objected to this very camp commandant Koch and, in fact, knew that he had been tried and sentenced for doing precisely these things. And there was some intimation, we feel, that the Prosecution, having this knowledge, withheld it from the Tribunal. Now, I wish to say that we had no knowledge at all about this man Koch at the time that we offered the proof; didn't know anything about him except that he had been the commandant according to the affidavit. But subsequent to this objection we had an investigation made, and we have found that he was tried in 1944, indeed, by an SS court, but not for having tanned human skin nor having preserved a human head, but for having embezzeled some money, for, what the judge tells us who tried him, was the charge of general corruption, and for having murdered someone with whom he had some personal difficulties.
Indeed, the judge, a Dr. Morgen, tells us that he saw the tatooed human skin and he saw a human head in Commandant Koch's office, and that he saw a lamp shade there made out of human skin.
But there were no charges at the time that he was tried for having done these things. Dr. Blaha sheds further light on whether or not these exhibits, 252 and 254 were isolated instances of that atrocious kind of conduct. We have not been able to locate the affiant. We have made an effort to do so but we have not been able to locate him thus far.
THE PRESIDENT: Locate whom?
MR. DODD: The affiant Pfaffenberger, the one whose affidavit was offered.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Mr. Dodd.
DR. KAUFMANN (Counsel for Defendant Kaltenbrunner): The statement just made is undoubtedly significant, but it would be of significance if we had the proof and the documents which served to convict the commandant and his wife, for Kaltenbrunner told me that in the whole SS it was known that the Commandant Koch and his wife were also--and I emphasize "also"---they had been made responsible, and it was known in the whole SS that the size, the magnitude of the penalty was determined by the determination of inhuman demeanor.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. As you were the Counsel who made the allegation that the Commandant Koch had been put to death for his inhuman treatment, it would seem that you are the party to produce the judgment.
DR. KAUFMANN: I never saw the sentence in my own hand. I depended on the information which Kaltenbrunner gave me personally and verbally.
THE PRESIDENT: It was you who made the assertion. I don't care where you got it from. You made the assertion; therefore it is for you to produce the document.
DR. KAUFMANN: Yes, sir.
COL. PHILLIMORE: May it please the Tribunal: Briefs and document books have been handed in. The documents in the document book are in the order in which I shall refer to them, and the references to them in the briefs are also in that order. On the first page of the brief is set out the extract from Appendix A of the Indictment, which deals with the criminality of this Defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you dealing first of all with Raeder or with Doenitz?
COL. PHILLIMORE: With Doenitz. My learned friend, Elwyn-Jones, will deal with Raeder later.
THE PRESIDENT: The tribunal will adjourn for ten minutes.
(A recess was taken from 1030-1040)
COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, may I proceed?
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Briefs and documents books have been handed in. The documents are in the document book in the order in which I shall refer to them, and the references in the brief to the documents are in that same order. On the first page of the brief is set out the extract from the Indictment as Appendix A, which deals with the allegations against this defendant. It sets out the positions he held, and charges him first with promoting the preparations for war, set forth in Count I; secondly, with participating in the military planning and preparation for wars of aggression and wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances, set forth in Count I and II of the Indictment; and, thirdly, with authorizing, directing, and participating in the war crimes, set forth in Count III of the Indictment, including particularly the crimes against persons and property on the high seas. the consent and courtesy of the chief prosecutor for the French Republic. positions held by the Defendant Doenitz , and the document in question is the first document in the document book, 2887-PS, which has already been put in as United States Exhibit No. 12. The members of the Tribunal will see that after his appointment in 1935 as commander of the Weddigen U-boat flotilla -- that was, in fact, the flotilla to be formed after the World war in 1918. The defendant, who was in effect then commander of U-boats, rose steadily in rank as the U-boat arm expanded until he became an admiral. And then on the 30th of January 1943 he was appointed Gross Admiral and Succeeded the Defendant Raeder as commander-in-chief of the German Navy, retaining his command of the U-boat arm. Then on the 1st of May 1945 he succeeded Hitler as leader of Germany.
evidence, the defendant was awarded the following decorations: On the 18th of September 1939 the Cluster of the Iron Cross, first class, for the U-boat successes in the Baltic during the Polish campaign. This award was followed on the 21st of April 1940 by the high award of the Knight's Cross to the Iron Cross, whilst on the 7th of April 1943 he received personally from Hitler the Oak Leaf to the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross as the 223 recipient for his services in building up the German Navy and in particular the offensive U-boat arm for the coming war, which were outstanding. And on that I put in the next document in the document book, D-436, which becomes GB-183. That is an extract from the official publication "Das Archiv" on the defendant's promotion to vice-admiral. It is dated the 27th of September 1940, and I read the last two sentences:
"In four years of untiring and in the fullest sense of the word uninterrupted work of training, he succeeds in developing the young U-boat armed personnel and material till it is a weapon of a striking power unexpected even by the experts. More than three million gross tons of sunken enemy shipping in only one year achieved with only few boats speak better than words of the service of this man." GB-164, is an extract from the diary for the German Navy, 1944 edition, and it serves to emphasize the contents of that last document. My Lord, I won't read from it. The relevant passage is on page two, and if I might summarize that it describes in detail the Defendant's work in building up the U-boat arm, his ceaseless work in training night and day to close the gap of seventeen years during which no training had taken place, his responsibility for new improvements, and for devising the "pack" tactics which were later to become so famous. And then his position is summarized further at the top of page three. If I might read the last two sentences of the first paragraph on that page:
"In spite of the fact that his duties bock on unmeasurable proportions since the beginning of the huge U-boat construction program, the chief was what he always was and always will be, leader and inspiration to all the forces under him."
And then the last sentence of that paragraph:
"In spite of all his duties he never lost touch with his men and he showed a masterly understanding in adjusting himself to the changing fortunes of war." the defendant these high honors: his promotion to succeed the Defendant Raeder as commander-in-chief of the Navy, the personal position he acquired as one of Hitler's principal advisers, and finally, earlier candidates such as Goering having betrayed Hitler's trust, or finding the position less attractive than they had anticipated, the doubtful honor of becoming his successor. These he owed to his fanatical adherence to Hitler and to the Party, to his belief in the Nazi ideology with which he sought to indoctrinate the Navy and the German people, and to his masterly understanding in adjusting himself to the changing fortunes of war, referred to in the diary and which the Tribunal may think, when I have referred them to the document, may be regarded as synonymous with the capacity for utter ruthlessness. His attitude to the Nazi Party and its creed is shown by his public utterances. to become GB-185. It is an extract from a speech made by the defendant at a meeting of commanders of the Navy in Weimar on the 17th of December 1943. It was subsequently circulated by the defendant as a top-secret document for senior officers only and by the hand of officers only. My Lord, if I might read:
"I am a firm adherent of the idea of ideological education. For what is it in the main? Doing his duty is a matter of course for the solder. But the whole important, the whole weight of duty done, are only present when the heart and spiritual conviction have a voice in the matter. The result of duty done is then quite different to what it would be if I only carried out my task literally, obediently, and faithfully. It is therefore necessary for the soldier to support the execution of his duty with all his mental, all his spiritual energy, and for this his conviction, his ideology are indispensable.
It is therefore necessary for us to train the soldier uniformly, comprehensively, that he may be adjusted ideologically to our Germany. Every dualism, every dissension in this connection, or every divergence or unpreparedness imply a weakness in all circumstances.
He in whom this grows and thrives in unison is superior to the other. Then indeed the whole importance, the whole weight of his conviction comes into play. It is also nonsense to say that the soldier or the officer must have no politics." My Lord, the word "perhaps" there is a mistranslation. The sense does not require it. "The soldier embodies the state in which he lives, he is the representative, the articulate exponent of this state. He must therefore stand with his whole weight behind this state.
We must travel this road from our deepest conviction. The Russian travels along it. We can only maintain ourselves in this war if we take part in it with holy zeal, with all our fanaticism. who holds the production of Europe in his hand, with Minister Speer. My ambition is to have as many warships for the Navy as possible so as to be able to fight and to strike. It does not matter to me who builds them." My Lord, that last sentence is of importance in connection with a latter document. The Tribunal will see when I come to this that the Defendant was not above employing concentration camp labor for this purpose. GB-186. It is an extract from a speech on the same subject by the Defendant as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy to the Commanders in Chief on the 15th of February 1944. My Lord, it is cumulative except that I think the last two sentences add, if I might read then: indoctrinated that it feels itself co-responsible for the National Socialist State in its entirety. The officer is the exponent of the state, the idle chatter that the officer is non-political is sheer nonsense." It consists of three extracts from speeches. The first is from a speech made by the Defendant to the German Navy and the German people on Heroes' Day, the 12th of March, 1944.
"German men and women.
".... What would have become of our country today, if the Fuehrer had not united us under National-Socialism. Split into parties, beset with the spreading poison of Jewry and vulnerable to it, and lacking, as a defense, our present uncompromising world outlook, we would long since have succumbed to the burdens of this war and been subject to the merciless destruction of our adversaries.
..." July, 1944. It again shows the Defendant's fanaticism. It is perhaps worth reading the first sentence:
"Men of the Navy. Holy wrath and unlimited anger fill our hearts because of the criminal attempt which shouldhave cost the life of our beloved Fuehrer. Providence wished it otherwise -- watched over and protected our Fuehrer, and did not abandon our German fatherland in the fight for its destiny." these traitors. the armed forces. I don't think I need read it, but as the members of the Tribunal will see, it was the Defendant Keitel and this Defendant who were responsible for the alteration of the salute in the German forces and the adoption of the Nazi salute -- together with Goering, I should have said, the Defendants Goering, Keitel andDoenitz. wireless by this Defendant, announcing the death of Hitler and his own succession. It is D-444. I put it in to become GB-188, and I read a portion of it. The time is 22.26 marked on the document. I read therefrom:
"It has been reported fromthe Fuehrer's Headquarters that our Fuehrer Adolph Hitler has died this afternoon in his battle headquarters at the Reichschancellory fighting to the last breath for Germany against Bolshevism.
"On the 30th April the Fuehrer nominated Grand Admiral Doenitz to be his successor. The Grand Admiral and Fuehrer's successor will speak to the German nation."
And then, the first paragraph of the speech:
"German men and women, soldiers of the German Armed Forces. Our Fuehrer Adolph Hitler is dead. The German people bow in deepest sorrow and respect. Early he had recognized the terrible danger of Bolshevism and had dedicated his life to the fight against it. Hig fight having ended, he died a hero's death in the capital of the German Reich, after having led an unmistakably straight and steady life."
My Lord, I am afraid there is an error in the translation. It should read "an unmistakably straight...." Defendant, which is very much to the same effect. evidence that the Defendant, as Officer Commanding U-boats, took part in the planning and execution of aggressive war against Poland, Norway, and Denmark. The next document in the document book, C-126/C, has already been put in as GB-45. It is a memorandum by the Defendant Raeder, dated the 16th of May, 1939, and I will call the attention of the Tribunal to the distribution. The sixth copy went to the Fuehrer der Unterseeboote, that is to say, to the Defendant Doenitz. It is a directive for the invasion of Poland, Fall Weiss, and I won't read it. It has already been read.
The next document, C-126/E, on the second page of that same document, has also been put in as GB-45. It again is a memorandum from the Defendant Raeder's headquarters, dated the 2nd of August, 1939. It is addressed to the fleet, and then Flag Officer, U-boats -- that is, of course, the Defendant -and it is merely a covering letter for operational directions for the employment of U-boats to be sent out to the Atlantic by way of precaution in the event of the intention to carry out "Fall Weiss" remaining unchanged. The second sentence is important:
"Flag Officer, U-boats, is handing in his operational orders to Slk." -that is the Seekriegsleitung, the German Admiralty -- "by 12 August. A decision on the sailings of U-boats for the Atlantic will probably be made at the middle of August."
The next document, C-172, I put in as GB-189. It consists of the Defendant's own operational instructions to his U-boats for the operation "Fall Weiss". It is signed by him. It is not dated, but it is clear from the subject matter that its date must be before the 16th of July, 1939. I don't think the substance of the document adds. It is purely an operational instruction, giving effect to the document already put in, CO126/c, the directive by Raeder. It is an extract from the War Diary of the Naval War Staff of the German Admiralty, dated the 3rd of October, 1939, and records the fact that the Chief of the Naval War Staff has called for views on the possibility of taking operational bases in Norway. It has already been read and I would merely call the Tribunal's attention to the passage in brackets, in the paragraph marked "d".
"Flat Office U-boats already considers such habors extremely useful as equipment - and supply - bases for Atlantic U-boats to call at temporarily."
The next document. C-5, has already been put in as GB-83. This is from the Defendant, as Flag Office U-boats, addressed to the Supreme Command of the Navy, the Naval War Staff. It is dated the 9th of October, 1939, and it sets out the Defendant's views on the advantages of Trondheim and Narvik as bases. The document proposes the establishment of a base at Trondheim with Narvik as an atlernative. It is the Defendant's operation order to his U-boats for the occupation of Denmark and Norway, and the operation order, which is top secret, dated the 30th of Marvh, 1940, is termed "Hartmut". The members of the Tribunal will remember that the document, in the last paragraph, said:
"The naval force will, as they enter the harbor, fly the British flag until the troops have landed, except presumably at Narvick." the disposition of the U-boats under his command on the 3rd of September, 1939, when war broke out between Germany and the Western Allies. The locations of the sinkings in the following week, including that of the Athenia which will be dealt with by my learned friend Mr. Elwin Jones, provide corroboration.
On that, I would put in two charts, I put them in as D-652, and they become GB-190.
My Lord, I have copies here for the members of the Tribunal. They have been prepared by the admiralty. There are two charts. The first sets out the disposition of the submarines on the 3rd of September, 1939. There is a note attached to the chart, the top left--hand corner, which I should read:
"This chart has been constructed from a study of the orders issued by Doenitz between 21 August 1939 and 3 September 1939, and subsequently captured. The chart shows the approximate disposition of submarines ordered for the third of September 1939, and cannot be guaranteed accurate in every detail, as the file of captured orders are clearly not complete and some of the submarines show apparently had received orders at sea on or about September 3 to move to new operational areas. The documents from which this chart was constructed are held by the British Admiralty in London". First, it will be apparent to members of the Tribunal that U-boats which were in thos positions on the 3rd of September of 1939 had left Kiel some considerable time before. The other point which I would make is important in connection with my learned friend Mr. Elwyn Jones' case against the Defendant Raeder, and that is the location of the U-boat U-30. The members of the Tribunal may care to bear it in mind while looking at the charts now. the war, and the location of the sinking of the Athenia will be noted. There is a short certification in the left-hand corner of the Tribunal's copies:
"This chart has been constructed from the official records of the British Admiralty in London. It shows the position and sinkings of the British merchant vessels lost by enemy action in the seven days subsequent to 3 September 1939."
My Lord, I turn to the Defendant's participation in war crimes and crimes against humanity. shipping by the U-boats followed under the Defendant's direction, a course of consistently increasing ruthlessness. The Defendant displayed his masterly understanding in adjusting himself to the changing fortunes of war. From the very early days, merchant ships, both allied and neutral, were sunk without warning, and when operational danger zones had been announced by the German Admiralty, these sinkings continued to take place both within and without those zones. With some exceptions in the early days of the war, no regard was taken for the safety of the cews or passengers of sunk merchant ships, and the announcement claiming a total blockade of the British Isles merely served to confirm the established situation under which U-boat warfare was being conducted without regard to the established rules of international warfare or the requirements of humanity.
The course of the war at sea during the first eighteen months is summarized by two official British reports made at a time when those who compiled them were ignorant of some of the actual orders issued which have since come to hand.
My Lord, I turn to the next document in the document book. It is D-641(a), which I put in to become GB-191. It is an extract from an official report of the British Foreign Office concerning German attacks on merchant shipping during the period 3 September 1939 to September 1940, that is to say, the first year of the war, and it was made shortly after September 1940. page:
"During the first twelve months of the war, 2,081,062 tons of Allied shipping comprising 508 ships have been lost by enemy action. In addition, 769,213 tons of neutral shipping, comprising 253 ships, have also been lost. Nearly all these merchant ships have been sunk by submarine, mine, aircraft or surface craft, and the great majority of them sunk while engaged on their lawful trading occasions. 2,836 Allied merchant seamen have lost their lives in these ships.
"In the last war the practice of the central powers was so remote from the recognized procedure that it was thought necessary to set forth once again the rules of warfare in particular as applied to submarines. This was done in the Treaty of London 1930, and in 1936 Germany acceded to these rules. The rules laid down:
"(1) In action with regard to merchant ships, submarines must conform to the rules of international law to which surface vessels are subjected.
"(2) In particular, except in the case of persistent refusal to stop on being summoned, or of active resistance to visit and search, a war ship, whether surface vessel or submarine, may not sink or render incapable of navigation a merchant vessel without having first placed passengers, crew and ships' papers in a place of safety. For this purpose, the ship's boats are not regarded as a place of safety unless the safety of the passengers and crew is assured in the existing sea and weather conditions, by the proximity of land, or the presence of another vessel which is in a position to take them on board."