Q You did say that. This sentence is naturally a logical development, and the conclusion to be drawn from your directives means plunder and plunder all you can?
A No, it does not. Just after that it goes on to say that directives were issued that soldiers could go shopping.
that they could but as much as they possibly could and as much as they could carry . . . .
Q. I might remind you of this quotation too. However, I will refer to that sentence again. You state, "Soldiers may purchase as much as they want, what they want, and what they can take by all means."
A. As much as they can carry, yes, and that was necessary because the custom authorities had issued limiting orders saying that a soldier could only carry a small parcel, and that appeared wrong to me, namely, that the soldier who had fought should have the least benefit from victory.
Q. In that case you did not deny that the cited extract from your speech of the 6th of August 1942 belonged to you and was made by you?
A. I don't deny that at all.
Q. I do not -- let us go on to the next question. Do you admit that as the Plenipotentiary of the Four Year Plan you were directing the forced labor of millions of citizens of the occupied territories, and that defendant Sauckel was your immediate subordinate in this activity? Do you admit that?
A. Formally he was my immediate subordinate, but he was also directly subordinate to the Fuehrer, and I have already emphasized that so far as I was informed I will bear part of the responsibility; and of course of these measure I was informed.
Q. I want to draw your attention to your other remarks of the same conference. You will find that on page 101 and 102.
A. That has already been read to the Tribunal.
Q. I would like to ask you now if you found the place?
A. I have found it.
Q. You have found it. It states here that at this conference -- quoting you -- "I do not want to catch Gauleiter Sauckel by the ear; he does not need that for his misdemeanors. What he has accomplished in such a short period of time regarding the speedy recruitment of manpower from all over Europe and Further, on page 103, you say, "These are merely small numbers." Here he talks "about 500,000.
What about bringing in almost 2,000,000?". Have you found the place in the document?
A. Yes, it is quite correct.
Q. It was not explicit. Make it more precise.
A. Kock is stating there that he supplied all these people for Sauckel. "I repeatedly told him that the whole program of Sauckel's concerned 2,000,000 workers and that he, Koch, could only way that he supplied 500,000, half as much." In other words, he was claiming that he had supplied the whole lot personally.
Q. Did you think that 500,000 was a small number?
A. No, it isn't like that. I have just explained it. Out of 2,000,000, according to the total estimate of Sauckel in the past years, 500,000 came from the Ukraine and not as Koch was saying that he had supplied the whole number of these workers alone.
That is the sense of this quotation.
all Europe -- discussing forced labor -- millions of farced laborers were exported to Germany for slave labor?
A I am not denying that. We are talking about 2,000,000 workers, but whether they were all brought to Germany in something I can't say at the moment. At any rate, they were used for German economy.
Q You do not deny that this was slavery?
A Slavery, that I deny. Forced labor has of course partly been used, and the reason for that I have already stated. Germany? why. were read into the record which made it clear that the citizens of the occupied territories were sent to Germany forcibly; they were gathered together by all sorts of methods; they were caught in the streets, put into trains, sent to Germany under guard; and their attempts to evade being departed resulted in terrible reprisals against native people. You have heard the documents which explained and described these methods.
show it wasn't ordered but that even the collections for forced labor were regulated by other decrees and orders. If one could have finally an absolute guarantee, particularly in the East, that all these people were utterly peaceful and peace-loving people, that they never took part in Partisan activities and never carried out any sabotage, then I probably would have used a larger percentage for work on the spot. But security, both in the East and West -- particularly in the West -- forced us, especially in the case of younger men who were growing up and of an age suitable for military service, to apprehend, them and bring them to Germany for labor. Germany?
A There were two reasons. And may I explain them in detail? One, the reason of security, and two, the reason of necessity for finding labor. the reason of necessity. People were forcibly taken from their country and sent to slavery inGermany, is that correct?
A Not to slavery; they were sent to Germany to work, but I must emphasize that not everybody who was taken from the East was taken to work for us. For instance, from Poland and from that territory which had been occupied by the Soviet Union 1,680,000 Poles and Ukrainians had previously been taken East by the Soviet Union -
Q I don't think you should touch on the question of the Soviet territories. Just answer the questions which I ask you, which is the question of exporting to Germany from all countries citizens of those countries for forced labor. I am asking you once more: Of the 6,000,000 persons who were sent to Germany, approximately 200,000 were volunteers, while the rest were taken to Germany forcibly?
A First of all, I must set that right. I didn't say that to Sir David at all. He asked me that and just for a moment he quoted the figure 5,000,000 and said that of those no more than 200,000 had been volunteers, and he asked me that on the strength of a record dealing with central planning, and said that it was supposed to be a statement from Sauckel.
I did not agree but answered that the figure of volunteers must be much higher and that this must be a mistake as far as the figures are concerned.
Q All right. You affirm that the number of volunteers was visibly larger but you do not deny the fact that there still were millions who were sent to Germany against their will. You do not deny that. were forced to work is something I never denied, and I answered accordingly.
Q Let's go on to another question: Tell me, what procedure there was for sending on the directives of the OKW to various other agencies and organs of the Government?
A I didn't understand the sense of that question at all, as it came through in translation. the directives of the OKW to the liason organs of the Air Force and other units. was as follows: If an order came from the OKW, addressed to the Air Force, then it went through the following channels: If it was an order from the Fuehrer direct and signed by the Fuehrer, then that order had to be sent to me, the Supreme Commander, directly. If the order came on the strength of an order, in other words, not signed by the Fuehrer but beginning with the words, "By order of the Fuehrer," or "On instructions of the Fuehrer," and directives then followed, then such an order in accordance with its importance would go to the chief of the General Staff of my Air Force, and, again in accordance with its significance, he would in turn report it to me verbally, or if it was an apparent matter the order would go directly to the lower service departments concerned without going through the higher command sources at all. Otherwise, work would have been impossible, owing to the very large number of such orders.
Q In connection with this I would like to ask the following: In 1941 in the OKW there was prepared a series of directives and orders with regard to the conduct of the troops in the East and with regard to the treatment by them ofthe Soviet population. Specifically, there is a directi about military jurisdiction in the Barbarossa Region -- Document C-150 -which has already been submitted to the Tribunal.
According to this directive, the German officers had the right to shoot any person suspected of action unfavourable to the Germans, without bringing that person to court. This directive also stated that the German soldiers could not be punished for crimes which they committed against the local population. Such directives must have been known to you -- they must have been reported to you
A I would have to see that, from the distribution slip. May I see the document, please? of all to my officers.
AActually it didn't go straight to me. It says on the distribution chart, "OB. D.L. Leadership Staff, General Quartermaster." In fact, so far as my troops were concerned, I issued extremely sharp orders and that was the reason why I have asked for the Supreme Judge of the Air Force to be called as a witness and have now sent him an interrogotory.
Q You do know about this directive, however? since this order did not go directly to the Supreme Commander but went to the departments which I have just mentioned. Nevertheless, if the department acted accordingly, then I do of course formally bear the responsibility -or share it. But we are here concerned with an order from the Leader and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, which troops could not have any argument about it. you should have known about it? Supreme Commander, and not to the subordinate department, Air Force Leadership Staff or General Quartermaster. And from those departments -- whether they believed that the importance of the document was such or not, I don't know. The matter was reported to me, so that they had to get my personal orders and instructions.
But anyway in this case this did not occur, since that document did not affect us as much as it did the Army.
A No, it did not have to be reported to me. I explained a little earlier that if every order and every directive were reported to me which came through in the shape of an order but did not require my interference, then I should be drowned in paper; and that is the reason why only the most important matters were brought to me and reported to me. mentioned in a verbal report to me. It is possible. And formally I am assuming responsibility even for the departments who were subordinate to me.
Q I would like to be more precise about it. You say that the most important things, or the important things, were usually reported to you; correct?
you, third and fourth points of the order, of this directive. The third point says:
"Actions of civilians against German armed forces must be suppressed by the armed forces locally and immediately and through the utilization of the most extreme measures, including extermination of persons so guilty."
Fourth paragraph: "Thus, no time should be lost -which one; I am trying to sort them out. quite erroneously in the German.
"In the case of all hostile attacks of civilian persons against the armed forces, extreme measures must be taken by the troops and must result in the destruction of the attacker."
Q And Point Four? says that where measures of that kind have been omitted or were originally not possible, the suspicious elements will be taken to an officer at once, who will decide whether they are to be shot. That is probably what you meant, isn't it?
Q That is all. This is just what I had in mind. Could it be assumed that this document, from your point of view, is important enough to have been reported to you? to be reported since the Fuehrer order made it so absolutely clear that a subordinate leader and even a supreme commander of a part of the armed forces could not alter such a clear and strict order.
Q I draw your attention once more to the date in the right hand corner.
It states there, Fuehrer headquarters, 13 May 1941. German attack on the Soviet Union? Already, then, directives were formulated about applying military jurisdiction and court martials within the regions covered by the Plan Barbarossa, and you did not know about this document? with reference to special cases, lay down what must be done since in accordance with experience, the Fuehrer thought that a special threat from the East would take place immediately, and that is the reason why these measures were laid down which were to be taken if the resistance and the fight behind the lines, behind the front would take place. This was, in other words, a preparatory order in the event that such matters occured. That must always and at all times be done in such connections. bringing them to trial? to this paragraph, he could also, when he was of the opinion and had evidence that the opponent was making attacks from the rear, have himshot on the spot. That has always occurred, even before. the verdict right on the spot? a unit of his own, he is entitled to appoint a court martial at any time.
Q But you do agree that there is no question of any trial here? It states that he alone could decide what to do with the civilian.
A He could act alone or use a court martial on the spot. All he needed was another two people whom he had to call together, and then he could hear the case and decide the matter in two orfive minutes, if the evidence of the attack was available. the person?
the rear out of the house on my troops, then a court martial can settle the matter like that ectremely quickly, but if there is no evidence at all, then you can not act like that, but here we are concerned with immediate dealings or fighting against an attack.
Q Defendant Goering, let us put this question aside. I would like to point out once more that this directive issued by the headquarters of the armed forces was issued on 13 May 1941, which means that even at that time officers were given the right to shoot civilians practically on sight?
A Yes, but I deny that emphatically. This does not mention the giving of the right to the officer to shoot a man right away. Let us put this right. It says here--and I say once more--that it is attacks by hostile persons against the army, and then it says, "Where measures of that kind are necessary, then the suspicions elements are to be brought before the highest officer of the unit and he will decide what the disposition must be. In other words, it does not say that every officer can decide the fate of a civilian.
Q It is quite clear. The second document which I would like to quote here and question you about--Excuse me, please. The document is dated 1941 and has already been submitted as Number USSR 98.
A Just a moment. What was the date you mentioned?
Q 16 September 1941 is the date of the document. Point B of the document. I do not want to quote it. I am merely pointing it out to you. It states there that asa rule if a life of a German soldier is taken, then 150 communists should die for that. The method of the execution should put terror into the hearts of the population. I am not going to question you about the main substance of the document. That is quite clear and needs no clarification. I am merely interested in whether you did not know about this document either. department. The Air Force had very little to do with such matters. such a directive? particular date. Later on, I was informed -- and I would emphasize during the war, not here--that to start with five to ten was mentioned in that order originally and that the Fuehrer personally altered that to fifty to one hundred. The question is whether you have any evidence that the Air Force did in any place or any time use this, and that is not the case. That is all I can tell you about that.
Q I am asking you about something else. Do not ask me. I am asking you. Have your subordinates ever reported to you about this directive?
A No, but later on I heard about this document. At a later date.
Q What do you mean by "later date"? Please be more precise.
A I can not tell you that at the moment. It was sometime during the war, but now, on the strength of the fact that a figure which was originally five to ten had been altered by the Fuehrer personally to fifty to one hundred; that fact is what I heard.
Q For one German?
A I have just explained it to you. That is how I heard it. That was five to ten originally and the Fuehrer personally put a zero behind it. It was because of that fact that I learned about the whole matter.
Q You mean the Fuehrer added the zeros?
THE PRESIDENT: General Rudenko, do you think it is really necessary to go through these documents in such detail?
The
GENERAL RUDENKO: I am going to be through immediately, Mr. President. treatment of Soviet prisoners of war?
A I shall have to see them.
Q If you please. I mean, Mr President, the document which was already submitted to the Tribunal as USSR 338.
(A document was handed to the witness.) directive consists of applying weapons against the soviet prisoners of war. The application of the use of arms is considered legitimate, and when this happens the guards are not obliged to report on the subject. This document also speaks for itself.
A Just a minute. I have to read that first, It isn't quite clear to me. the directive with regard to the treatment of the Soviet prisoners of war, which states that if a prisoner of war tries to escape he must be shot immediately. No warning need be given. of war. and the guards are instructed to use their arms immediately. It also says that errors can arise in this connection.
Q Once more I want to say that the document speaks for itself. I am not asking about it; I want to know whether you knew about this directive. they were directed to these departments of mine which were concerned with prisoners of war. I do not know this document, and I don't know the one which contains an opinion of the department of foreign counter intelligence.
Q You did not know about this directive? All right. One other-- I mean 854-PS . already submitted, which talks about exterminating political workers. the air force did not have any camps with the Soviet prisoners of war. The air force only had those six camps in which the air force personnel of other powers were confined; in other words, it did not have any Soviet PW camps. the second man in command in Germany, you could not have known about these rather basic directives.
A I beg to apologize, if I may contradict you. The higher the office I held the less I would be concerned with orders dealing with prisoners of war, in fact, were orders meant for certain departments and not orders of the highest political or military significance.
If I had had much lower rank, then I might have had knowledge--much more knowledg-- of these orders. I am now looking at the document which you submitted to me--Department of Home Defense. It says on the left: Reference treatment of political and military Russian functionaries. That is the document I am looking at.
Q Please look at the date of the directive--12th of May, 1941. Fuehrer's headquarters.
Q Paragraph 3 of the directive -- look at that. Political leaders among the troops are not to be considered prisoners of war but must be exterminated immediately. They must never be transported to the rear. Did you know about this directive? it bears the heading "Notes of a report by Wagemann", and that the distribution chart does not show any other department outside the department Home Defense, which I have mentioned. In other words, this is a note for the files of a report.
Q You mean to say then that you did not know about this directive?
A I say once more : This is the note of a report made by a certain department chief, and it is not an order, not a directive, but a record of a report.
THE PRESIDENT: That is not an answer to the question. You are telling us what it was, not whether you knew of it.
A No; I did not. It had been put before me as an order, and I wanted to point out that it isn't one. have been executed also by the units of the Luftwaffe.
A If ordered by the Fuehrer -- Yes; or if ordered by me, also. prisoners of war?
Q You do not remember them?
A We didn't have any camps with Soviet POW's in the air force. OKW, were they not issued even before the beginning of the war against the Soviet Union by way of preparing for that war? Does not this show that the German Government and the OKW had already made a plan for exterminating the Soviet population?
A No. That isn't proved by that at all. All the proof is that we thought of the fight against the Soviet Union as an extremely hard one, and that it was conducted because there were no conventions.
Q These rules of warfare are well known to us. Please tell me, do you know about Himmler's directives given in 1941 about exterminating millions of slavs? You heard about it from the witness right here in court. Do you remember about that?
A Yes. Firstly: This wasn't an order but a speech. Secondly: It was a statement of Zelewski. And thirdly: In all speeches Himmler made to his subordinate officers he insisted that the contents should be kept absolutely secret. In other words, this is a statement from a witness, according to what he has heard, and not an order. Consequently, I have no knowledge of that affair.
Q You did not know. All right. Tell me, in the German totalitarian state was there not a central directive center which meant Hitler and his immediate associates, including yourself? Thus, these directives must have been known not only to Himmler but to others. Himmler alone could not have issued directives about exterminating thirty million Slavs without discussing it or having received directives either from you or from Hitler. million Slavs. The witness said that he made a speech in which he said that thirty million Slavs should be destroyed. If Himmler would have in fact issued such an order, then he would have had to ask the Fuehrer and adhere to the Fuehrer's orders, and the Fuehrer would have told him immediately that that was impossible.
Q I did not talk about an order; I talked about a directive --an intention. You do admit or you state, rather, that Himmler could have issued directives without discussing them with Hitler? given, and I knowof no directive or order of that type that has been mentioned here.
Q Once more I shall repeat this question: Is it not true that the directives and the orders of the OKW with regard to treating the civilian populations and the prisoners of war in the occupied Soviet territories were part of the general directive about exterminating the Slavs?
This is what I want to know.
A Not at all. At no time has there been a directive originating from the Fuehrer or anybody I know referring to the destruction of the Slavs. zens in the occupied territories of the Soviet Union with the help of the security police -- the SD. Is it not true that these organs and their activities were the results of the plan prepared long in advance about exterminating both the Jews and other groups of Soviet citizens?
A No. Action groups were an internal matter which was kept extremely secret.
GENERAL RUDENKO: I shall have several other questions. Perhaps it is better to adjourn now and wait for the other questions.
THE PRESIDENT: How long do you think it will take, General Rudenko?
GENERAL RUDENKO: I think not more than another hour.
THE PRESIDENT: All these documents which you have been putting to the witness, as I have pointed out to you, are documents which have already been put in evidence and documents which seem to me to speak for themselves. I hope, therefore, that you will make your cross examination as short as you can. The Tribunal will now adjourn.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 22 March 1946 at 1000 hours).
DR. SERVATIUS (Counsel for the Leadership Corps): Mr. President,
THE PRESIDENT: What is the number of the document?
DR. SERVATIUS: D-728.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yesterday the translation of that document, D-728, was handed to me.
It is the document which yesterday was objected to
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: I request to have this re-translated, since this tion against the document.
On the first page of that document there lining the important points.
A thorough translation ought, therefore, of the original document.
I am fully aware of what the difficulties
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, the translation shall be checked by a
DR. SERVATIUS: May I ask to have a new translation made, since original already contains considerable mistakes?
We would have the
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly it shall be checked and re-translated.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then, may I make a second motion; namely, may we will ascertain that the author of this document does not have made by some one who was a foreigner.
I do not want to to into
THE PRESIDENT: I think you must certainly make a written
DR. SERVATIUS: I shall certainly hand it in in writing. BY GENERAL RUDENKO: on Poland was perpetrated after the bloody happenings in the town of Bromberg. events which, in addition to a large number of others, caused the so-called bloody Sunday at Blomberg.
Q Do you know that these events happened on 3 September 1939? I would have to have details about that. I merely quoted that as one example amongst a lot of others.
Q It is understandable. The attack was perpetrated on 1 September, and the events in the town of Bromberg, which you just mentioned to the Tribunal, happened on3 September 1939.
GENERAL RUDENKO: I would submit to the Tribunal the document and evidence from the Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland, which is duly certified in accordance with Article 21 of the Charter. From this testimony it is clear that the events about which the defendant here is testifying happened on 3 September 1939. That is to say, on the third day after the attack by Germany on Poland.
THE PRESIDENT: You can put the document to the witness, if you want.
GENERAL RUDENKO: I have no German text. I have it in English and in Russian. I just received this document. It isdated 19 March, and I submit it to the Tribunal as evidence without doubt.