THE PRESIDENT: This will be a good time to break off. made to leave out unnecessary details and to cut down the length of your address and it hopes that during the adjournment you will continue your efforts in that direction.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Of course, I shall.
(The Tribunal adjourned until February 18, 1946, at 1000 hours.)
THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make, and I make it in this order, in the form of paragraphs.
Paragraph 1: The Tribunal cannot accept paragraph 1 of the prosecution's motion as to the evidence of the defendants, dated 11 February 1946, but directs that in complying with Article 24-D of the Charter, counsel for defendants shall confine their evidence to what is required for meeting the charges in the Indictment. 2 to 5 of the prosecution's motion.
Paragraph 2: With regard to the naming of witnesses, etc., by the defense under Article 24-D of the Charter, which is referred to in paragraph 1 of Dr. Stahmer's memorandum to the Tribunal dated 4 February 1946, the Tribunal makes the following order: procuring of documents, and without prejudice to the defendant's right to make further application at the conclusion of the case for the prosecution, counsel for the defendant Goering, Hess, Ribbentrop and Keitel shall, before 5 p.m. on Thursday, the 21st of February, file with the General Secretary written statements giving the names of the witnesses and particulars of the documents they respectively desire to call or put in evidence, with a summary of the facts to be proved thereby and an exposition of the relevance thereof. that is to say, 10 o'clock--for the hearing of argument upon such statements in open session.
Paragraph 3: The Tribunal will, in due course, issue directions as to the filing of similar statements on behalf of the other defendants and the hearing of argument thereon.
Paragraph 4: The Tribunal will announce later their decision on the other matters raised in Dr. Stahmer's memorandum.
The Tribunal will now hear the defendants' counsel's application for a recess.
PROFESSOR KRAUS: Kraus, representing defendants' counsel.
The defendants' counsel are thankful to the Tribunal for the opportunity that is presented for them to give the reasons for their application for an adjournment of the trial after the conclusion of the prosecution, this application being of the 4th of February. defense has striven to achieve a simple, clear, and as rapid a presentation as possible of its case. points.
First: All the defendants are accused of participation in a conspiracy. That is apparently intended to mean that every act brought up in the course of this trial, no matter by whom it was committed and to whom it was done, is charged against every one of these defendants, and that he can be convicted on every one of these acts. Even though the individual defense counsel finds certain fields with which he must concern himself particularly, there are, nevertheless, no fields at all which he can entirely ignore. and sometimes alone, it can be seen how enormous is the extent of the labor involved in the examination and discussion of the material that is daily presented by the prosecution. The necessary, continual discussions with the defendants uses up the evening hours and the days on which there are no sessions. These discussions are, moreover, because of the security measures that have been taken, very exhausting. lawyer, along with his attendance at the trial and his continuous working over of the material presented at the trial, to make those intellectual and technical preparations that can justifiably be expected in a trial of such significance as this one.
Secondly: The material presented is not yet conclusive. The Russian Prosecution is presenting new evidence daily. In the opinion of the defense counsel, it would lead to an incorrect evaluation of the extent and importance of the accusations which the Russian Delegation is presenting if the defense counsel were expected to conclude their preparations for t heir defense before they had even heard the conclusions of the prosecution's case.
Thirdly: The Tribunal has already been informed, in the written application, of the difficulties involved in getting evidence. A few examples might be cited in this regard, examples to which every one of the defense counsel could add. call a witness who was of decisive importance for the presentation of his case. The application was approved by the Tribunal. Although this witness was a very high German official, it was only in January of this year that the camp could be found at which he then was. The witness has, thus far, not turned up in Nurnberg. Therefore, the defense lawyer has, so far, no idea as to which questions this witness can testify on and what he would testify.
Another example: In numerous cases the place of residence of witnesses could not be determined, whose appearance at the trial the Tribunal had ordered in orders of November of last year. Defense counsel can help in no way in finding out where these witnesses are, in all those cases in which the witnesses are to be found in allied prisons, if they -- that is, the witnesses -- have no opportunity to provide information as to where they are.
Another example: One part of defense counsel, has been asked, for the hearing of witnesses outside Germany, to present questionnaires in which they are to state where these witnesses are to be heard. The answers to these questions have yet to return, in any case, to the defense counsel. In the case of witnesses who live in Germany, the defense counsel have repeatedly been asked to provide the interrogation themselves or to present a written declaration. Since the defense counsel are obliged to stay in Nurnberg during the sessions of the trial, they could fulfill this request only if there were a long adjournment.
Another example: One member of the defense, at the beginning of November, applied to submit a series of documents which were indispensible for his case. The documents are in the possession of one of the signatories of the Charter. They have been examined by the prosecution and have been submitted in evidence by the prosectuion, in so far asthey serve to implicate the defendant in question. The defense counsel is still not in possession of these exonerating documents.
Fourthly: We should like to emphasize again the purely technical difficulties that arise from the mimeographing and multiple translations.
THE PRESIDENT: Just one moment, Professor Kraus. You referred to a document which you said was indispensible, which was in the possession of the signatory power, examined by the prosecution and put in evidence in this case, and the defendants are still not in possession of it.
What is the reference to that document?
PROFESSOR KRAUS: No, Mr. President, it is a collection of documents in which the incriminating parts were presented by the prosecution, but we defense counsel have yet to come into possession of the exonerating parts of that collection of documents.
Dr. Kranzbuehler can give you further details on that subject.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, there is an application, I know, by Dr. Kranzbuehler, but if it is really a part of a document, the Tribunal has ruled on several occasions that if the prosecution puts in a certain part of a document, the whole of that document must be available to the defendants' counsel so that they can criticize and comment upon any other part of it which may throw light upon the part of the document which is put in evidence.
PROFESSOR KRAUS: Here it is not a single document in question, but a whole collection of documents. Dr. Kranzbuehler is anxious to have, from that collection of documents, those that would assist him in his exoneration of his client, since the incriminating documents have already been presented by the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: You may continue.
PROFESSOR KRAUS: Fourthly: The defense is thankful to the prosecution for the readiness they have shown in assisting the defense in the translations and mimeographing. The great difficulties which the prosecution itself has had in this matter, and the repeated discussions that the Tribunal have had to have on this matter, show, nevertheless, that an efficient solution of this problem will demand a certain length of time. its intention not to prolong the trail unnecessarily. Nevertheless, they are of the opinion that an inadequate preparation before the beginning of the defense will inevitably lead to a corresponding delay in the course of the defense, and that the results of such a defense might conceivably not suffice to the Tribunal to allow them to pass a fair verdict. portant in history of humanity, must be conducted throughout with peace and reflection, with that peacefulness and clamness that have characterized its previous course. Moreover, the understandable impatience of those who wish a quick ending of the trial must not be allowed to interfere with this. tion. The length of time applied for, namely, three weeks, cannot be considered unreasonable in view of the entire length which the prosecution has taken to complete its case.
The granting of this length of time would, on the other hand, contribute to the fact that the defense, in the pursuit of its case, would find itself in a spiritually and a materially lightened circumstance. today's application contrary to the opinion of the defendants we represent, but we feel that we must rely, in these matters, exclusively on our own consciences and on our professional tasks as defense lawyers. after serious and basic consideration my colleagues and I, without exception, are of the opinion that the length of time applied for, namely, three weeks, is the minimum which is necessary for an orderly preparation of the defense.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kraus, the Tribunal would, like to know if you can answer the question whether Defendants' Counsel have they desire to call in evidence; whether they have made up their
PROFESSOR KRAUS: I cannot answer this question. I should have to ask among my colleagues.
The cases are different in the case of individual lawyers.
Some of them are more or less ready;
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, I think its attention to two aspects of the matter; first, what Dr. Stahmer, which was followed in the main by Professor Kraus today.
It is stated that a respite is required for the that is, of the Prosecution; secondly, that the Defense Counsel such a manner that smooth functioning is guaranteed; and thirdly, I respectfully request the Tribunal's attention to some October, which is exactly four months ago today.
The Defendants stated at Berlin, "It must be understood that the Tribunal, which preparation of the Defense or of the trial."
placed in the Defendants' information center on the 1st of November.
to many hundred, was made on the 5th of November. Except for one, Dr. Bergold on behalf of the Defendant Bormann, all Counsel explaining the scope and emphasis of the Prosecution's case.
Every have been applications for witnesses.
I shall deal later with certain in quite considerable trials where men's lives have been at stake picture.
But this case does not stop there.
presentations. In every case Defendants' Counsel had these documents and trial briefs by the latest at the middle of January.
All the
M. Dubost, M. Quatre, and by my Soviet colleagues as they went along.
that the Prosecution have given assistance. And I want to say this, the case for the Prosecution and the case for the Defense.
The Prosecution must cover the whole field; the Defense selects the issues on which it will make its fight. is altered by the fact that we are here deatling with a conspriacy charge. Whether the charge is conspriacy or not, there are certain facts which are not in dispute. There are certain facts which will be, as is indicated by Dr. Stahmer's memorandum, the subject of legal argument or discussion as to the true inference to be drawn from them, and the fact that a case is based on conspiracy does not alter the fact that certain matters are either going to be contradicted by evidence or left uncontradicted. establishment of military forces in Germany, the occupation of the Rhineland, the Anschluss in Austria, the existence and circumstances of concentration camps, many of the actions of certain SS divisions and bodies under Himmler, are going to be disputed at all, because the defendants' counsel have had the opportunity of cross examining witnesses on many of these matters, and there has been no challenge by cross examination. the Tribunal this morning, which, of course, I accept with the utmost loyalty, but I hope the Tribunal will not think it wrong for me to mention in explanation that the Prosecution were anxious for the Defense to eliminate the matters in issue and would have been prepared, so far as it lies with them, to agree to a certain time being given for that purpose. But yet, the defendants have said -- and again I make no complaint -- that they are not prepared to do it. Therefore, that reason for adjournment disappears. unreasonable. We know, because we have seen the other side of the shield, that there are certain mechanical matters and matters of conclusion of preparation which have to be done before a case is put forward. We quite appreciate that the defenders of Goering, of Hess, and of Ribbentrop may require a day or two to put their tackle in order, but I want to make clear that that, in our view, is quite different from a three weeks' adjournment.
the maintenance of the dignity of the trial, but it is not essential, in my respectful submission, for the maintenance of the dignity of the trial that the trial should take place in slow time. That would not only be wrong, but it would be directly contrary to the portion of the Charter to which General Nikitchenko referred at Berlin. difficult matters, in that to begin with the defendants asked for many witnesses who were very largely repetitive, and they have, as I judge the applications, begun recently to get clear whoare the essential witnesses, and the Tribunal will rule on that finally as it has indicated.
I only take one other example. Professor Kraus mentioned the question of certain documents for which Dr. Kranzbuehler was asking, which were, as I understand it, U-boat diaries. I have arranged that Dr. Kranzbuehler's assistant will be enabled to go to London and examine these documents at his leisure in the Admiralty. That is on paper in our reply. I respectfully submit that that sort of attitude is the best and most helpful attitude for letting the defense get what they wish.
Mr. President, I have nearly exhausted my time, and I only say this in conclusion: The Prosecution has had to collate and coordinate actions taking place over a long period, certainly 12 years, in some cases 20 years. We have collated and coordinated the evidence of these actions. We have presented a case which is grounded mainly on the written statements or written records of statements made by the defendants themselves. The task before the defense is to give the explanation, what they way is the true color of words that have been proved and not disputed to have some out of their own mouths. but that being the state of this case, it is the attitude of the Prosecution, with, as I say, every desire to help in any way that is possible in the actual work, whether it be mechanical or preparing documents or otherwise, that the defense cannot rightfully ask for further time for general reflection and consideration on a case which has that basis.
We therefore respectfully but firmly object to any adjournment other than a matter of individual days, not more than a week, certainly -- we should say less than that -- for the purpose of completing preparations and putting mechanical tackle in order.
That, Mr. President, is the attitude of all my colleagues.
TEE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider its decision on this matter and it will adjourn this afternoon at 4:00 o'clock in order to consider the other matters which are raised in Dr. Stahmer's memorandum.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Very good.
Before I sit down, I am asked by my colleagues to make this clear. I, myself, did not tie myself in my argument to any number of days because a weekend may intervene and different considerations may arise, but my colleagues wish it to be before the Tribunal that their view is that taking into account the time which will elapse before the Soviet case is concluded, and the argument on the organizations for which time has to be allowed, two days is the figure they have in mind, although, as I say, a weekend may intervene which may add to that. I want to make it quite clear that we are quite definite.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, will you continue your address.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: I continue presentation of evidence in regard to Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia. The Government of Yugoslavia presented a whole series of originals and certified photostatic copies of different documents. I shall not present my own comments of these documents which were incorporated into the report of the Yugoslav Government, but I shall limit myself to presentation of the documents themselves, since they are definite and do no need any more comment.
I present as No. USSR-256 an original announcement of August 12, 1941, in which announcement there was mentioned the shooting of ten hostages. The printed poster was signed by the German Police Commissioner in Lasko, Hrabetzky. announcement of the shooting of 57 persons. This poster was printed on November 13, 1941, and was signed by Kutschera. January 21, 1942, relating the shooting of 15 hostages. The poster was signed by Roesner. announcing the shooting of 51 hostages, and the date is 1942. It is signed by Roesner. Roesner, which announced that on March 31, 1941, 29 hostages were shot. ment printed as a poster, signed by Roesner, which announced that on July 1, 1942, 29 hostages were shot. was fully exploited in Yugoslavia. as USSR-304, Report No.6 of the Yugoslav Extraordinary State Commission Investigating War Crimes. I quote one paragraph of this document:
"The group of hostages at Celje were publicly hanged on the hocks which butchers use for hanging meat, onto which the necks of the unfortunate men were garroted. In Mariber, the victims in groups of five had to lead the bodies of those already executed hostages into coffins and then onto trucks. After that, they themselves had to face the executioners' rifles, while the next group of five had to remove their bodies in turn. The Sodna Street in Mariber was all soaked in blood which was streaming out of the trucks."
the terroristic regime, that resume would not be complete if nothing were said about such countries as Greece, a country which also was the victim of a terroristic regime established there by German Fascists. Therefore, I present to the International Military Tribunal a report of the Government of the Greek Republic, and this report is certified with t he signature and seal of the Greek Ambassador in Great Britain, and also by the signature of the member of the British Foreign Office. concerns the setting up of the regime of Fascist terror in Greece, and which also deals with the same criminal system of hostages. the 31st of May, the German Commanding General in Athens published a frankly terroristic order which was directed against the peaceful population of Greece. The direct pretext for publishing this was the fact that on the 31st of May the Greek patriots tore down the German emblems. Forces in Greece, from the report of the Greek Government, on page 33 of the Russian translation. The order threatens severe punishment for the following reasons:
"a. Because in the night of 30-31 May, the German war flag was torn away by unknown persons. Those guilty of this act as well as their accomplices will be punished by death.
"b. Because press and public opinion of all classes still express themselves with evident sympathy in favor of the English, now expelled from Continental Europe." punishment.
"c. Because of events in Crete." the resistance of the inhabitants of the island of Crete to the German aggressors. They were not only condemned, but in one circle it was even commented on with satisfaction.
"d. Because specifically forbidden repeated gestures of sympathy towards British prisoners were allowed, such as offers of gifts, flowers, free cigarettes, and these demonstrations were tolerated by the Greek police who did not intervene with the means at their disposal.
"e. Because the behavior of large numbers of people of Athens towards the German armed forces has again become less friendly." Greece that characterized the actions of the Hitlerite criminals in all territories occupied by them. In confirmation of that, I cite the report of the Greek Government on page 34 of the Russian translation. I quote, beginning with line 4 from the top of the page:
"In violation of Article 50 of the Hague Convention, they systematically punished the innocent, enforcing the expressly condemned principle of joint responsibility of the community for acts of individuals. They used starvation as an instrument of pressure, and for weakening the spirit of resistance of the Greek population.
"Very few people were tried in courts martial, and when held, such trials were something of an issue of mockery. They instituted a policy of reprisals constituting taking hostages and killing hostages, mass murders, and destruction and devastation of villages for acts committed in their vicinity by unknown individuals. The great majority of those executed were picked at random from prisons and camps, without any possible relation to the act in reprisal for which they were executed. The life of every citizen depended on the arbitrary decision of the local commander." of the extremes of this terroristic regime which was established by them in Greece was the murder of thousands of people by starvation. On page 6 of the Russian text, in regard to this, they said the following:
"It is an incontestable fact that the great majority of the Greek population lived on the verge of starvation for nearly three years. Many thousands experienced real starvation for several months before relief shipments could reach them. As a result, the death rate increased by 500 or 600 per cent in the metropolitan centers and 700 per cent in the Greek islands from the period of September 1941 to April 1942. The infant mortality was 25 per cent, and the health of the survivors was greatly undermined." neutral missions. I quote one of those excerpts which is on page 38 of the Russian text of the Greek Government's report. I begin the quotation:
"During the winter of 1941-1942, when famine reigned in the capital, conditions in the provinces were still tolerable. During the following winter, however, when the relief for the larger towns had been exhausted by the free market, the situation was very different. During our first tours of inspection, in trying to investigate the situation in general, in March 1943 we made the acquaintance of a population literally screaming for bread. Many villages had only a substitute baked of flour, ersatz, wild grass and acorns, ordinarily food suitable only for pigs. In many districts, the population had received no other bread since December.
"We were taken inside the houses and were shown empty shelves and larders, and saw people cooking weeds with oil and salt in order to fill their stomachs.
"The inhabitants of the poorer villages were all extremely thin and the children, in particular, were often in a pitiful condition, with skinny extremities and swollen stomachs, without any natural vitality or cheerfulness. It was quite usual for half the children to be unable to go to school. (Report of the Swedish Delegates to the Peloponnesian Islands, January 1944.)" Hitler criminals in Greece, I also quote excerpts from the Greek Government report. From the text of this report it is quite evident that shootings of hostages during the first weeks of the German occupation of Greece were set on a great scale. I quote, for this reason, an excerpt from the report on page 41. I begin at the third line from the top of the Russian text:
"Hostages were taken indiscriminately and from every class of the population, politicians, professors, scientists, lawyers, doctors, officers, civil officials, clergy, workers, women, all those labeled as 'suspect' or Communist', and were thrown into local prisons or concentration camps.
"Prisoners under interrogation were subjected to various ingenious forms of torture. Hostages were concentrated in places of confinement where the arrested persons were subjected to the most unbearable regime." states with regard to this matter:
"The inmates were starved, beaten, then tortured. They were made to live under perfectly inhuman conditions without medical help or sanitation.
There they were subjected to the refined sadism of the SS guards. Many were shot or hanged. Others died from cruel treatment or starvation, and only a few were released and survived until the date of the liberation of the country.
"Hostages were also deported to concentration camps in Germany, Buchenwald, Belsen, Dachau, etc.
"The number of hostages shot amounts to some 91,000 hostages." criminals committed their crimes in connection with the physical extermination of the Russian people in the territory of the USSR, I ask the Tribunal to refer to page 299 in the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: You are now passing away from Greece, are you, Colonel Smirnov?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take a recess then.
(A recess was taken.)
COLONEL SMIRNOV: I beg the allowance of the Tribunal to skip a number of items of my statement. These items, which I exclude from the text, are numbered, and I beg the allowance of the Tribunal to tell the interpreters how many pages I skip. I draw the attention of the Tribunal to a document which testifies to the great scale of the extermination of Soviet people during the temporary occupation of districts of the USSR. As a confirmation of this I refer to a document which the Tribunal will find on page 291 of the document file, at the end of the last paragraph of the first column and on the second column of the text. This has to do with the report of the Extraordinary State Commission concerning the destruction, plunderings and atrocities of the German fascist usurpers in the town of Rowno and the Rowno district. I submit this document as USSR Exhibit 45. I quote the results of the examination by legal-medical experts concerning the bodies which were exhumed:
"In all burial places in the town of Rowno and its surroundings, more than 102,000 corpses of people, shot or murdered by other methods -peaceful Soviet citizens -- have been discovered, as well as prisoners of war. Out of this figure, in the town of Rowno, near the firewood depot on Beleya Street, 49,000 corpses have been discovered.
"In the town of Rowno, on Beleya Street in the vegetable gardens, 32,500.
"In the village of Sossenki, 17,500.
"In the stone quarries near the village of Vydumka, 3,000.
"In the lots belonging to the Rowno prison, 500." I draw the attention of the Tribunal to the following text, where we read indications as to the distribution of certain methods of murder which were adopted by the criminals: 1943. part of the document which is on page 240, second column of the text. These methods of extermination are typical for the regime of terror established by the Hitlerites in the temporarily occupied territories of the U.S.S.R.I begin my quotation on page 240 of the document file:
"On the 8th of March, 1943, the 'Volyn' paper of the German occupation troops, published the following announcement:
"'On the 8th of March 1943, inmates of the Rowno prison attempted to escape, whereby they killed one German official and one guard. The escape was thwarted by the energetic action of the prison guards. By order of the commandant of the German SP (Schutzpolizei) and SD (Sicherheitspolizei), all prison inmates were shot that day.'
"In November 1943 the German district judge was murdered by an unknown person. As a measure of retaliation, the Hitlerites again shot more than 350 inmates of the Rowno prison." as in those documents which will be submitted to the Tribunal, the Tribunal will find a series of similar crimes committed by the Hitlerite usurpers on the territories of the USSR. destruction of the village population. which will remain for a long time, and perhaps forever, in the memory of mankind, even though mankind will have learned about some crimes which are more important even than these. One of the crimes that will be so remembered is the destruction of a small Czechoslovak village called "Lidice", and the merciless annihilation of the population of that village. suffered on the territory of the Soviet Union, of Yugoslavia, and Poland, but mankind will remember Lidice and will never forget it, for this little village became a symbol of Nazi criminality. execution of the Protector of Csekia, Heydrich, by the Czechoslovak patriots, report of the Germans concerning this act of terror, which was published in the paper "Der Neue Tag" on the 2nd of June, 1942.