"The repeatedly emphasized neutrality of the Party with regard to the churches must indiciate that any possible friction must be avoided.
Since clergymen, as political leaders, or leaders of affiliated associations, as has been shown by experience, have not the freedom of decision under these circumstances which is required, and as, on the other hand, the movement, because of the church office which they hold, is threatened with being involved one-sidedly in the church struggle, the Deputy of the Fuehrer has ordered that clergymen should be relieved of their party positions as bearers of sovereignty at once and remain there until further instructions. " of the 19th of January, 1940, is addressing the Reich Ministry of Finance. He is objecting to the low contributions from the churches. I refer to the second paragraph, and I quote:
"The assessment of so low a contribution has surprised me very much. I gather from numerous reports that the political communities have to raise so high a contribution that the carrying out of their work, which is often very important, as for instance, in public welfare, is in jeopardy."
I then skip one sentence and I continue:
"As I understand it, the assessing of so low a contribution is partly tern territories and Sudaten Gau are not being called upon."
I skip the rest of the sentence and I continue:
"Such a difference in treatment for individual sections of the churches organizations is, in my opinion, in no way justified."
dated 28 January, 1939. I quote from the second paragraph:
"The party in recent years has repeatedly contemplated the plan of a between the state and the churches.
It has always turned down any such plans emphatically and this is for two reasons.
Firstly, it would not fulfil churches did not have national socialist alms everywhere.
Secondly, purely practical and political considerations oppose such a connection."
THE PRESIDENT: Could you tell us in what part of the book this is and what is the number ?
DR. BERGOLD:L-221 -- L-22. It is approximately in the middle of the Bormann made this report in his capacity as secretary.
The Prosecution have stated that Bormann's remarks show that the plans which were discussed tory of the Reich, had been approved by him.
For this reason I shall have to
THE PRESIDENT: This is L-221, not L-22.
DR. BERGOLD: The first remark follows the fourteenth paragraph and states as follows;
"Aside: as to a cultural class in the Ukraine or other Ukrainians of a better class exist only outside of the Russia of today is --."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, could you not tell us what original page it is ? In your document book there are headings "original page" so and so. Have not your documents got those words, "original page" so and so ?
DR. BERGOLD: There are those notations but you will have to give me one moment and I shall have to look through it again. The translation which I have received has different figures. It is page 4, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
"We have to create a garden of Eden --."
DR. BERGOLD: Unfortunately, I did not understand you.
THE PRESIDENT: As I understand you, the first part of page 4 is : "We have to create a garden of Eden --."
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, this is the third paragraph -- no, it is the fourth paragraph.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on, then.
DR. BERGOLD: Have you got it, my Lord ?
THE PRESIDENT: I shall not know until you tell me how it begins.
DR. BERGOLD: It begins:
"A subsidiary question : Is there still a cultural class in the Ukraine ?"
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have got that, yes.
DR. BERGOLD: It is on page 3.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is on page 4. It goes like this.
"Is there still anything like an educated class in the Ukraine ?"
DR. BERGOLD: According to the document which this gentleman has just submitted to me, it is on page 3 but it can be page 4 -- 3, 4-- 4, 3. Yes, it was page 3. Page 4 has a very similar remark and that says:
"There have been repeated occasions which have shown that Rosenberg has a great deal of liking for the Ukraine. He wants to enlarge the Ukrai n considerably."
third last paragraph :
"Please ask for the material from Dr. Meyer as soon as possible which refers to the proposed organization and proposed staffing of the organization."
Then at the end, page 6 of your original, last paragraph, it says:
"Incidentally, the Fuehrer emphasizes that the activity of the churches are out of the question. Papen through the Foreign Office had already submitted to him a long memorandum in which it is stated that now the right moment had arrived to reintroduce the churches. But that was definitely out of the question."
This, Mr. President, is a remark referring to a statement by the Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler. to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that in this record which Lammers had prepared, Bormann's presence is not mentioned at the beginning. Apparently because of his activity as secretary it was considered as a matter of course.
The paragraph starts:
"Then the discussion turned to the problem of religious freedom."
I shall begin with the fourth sentence, eighth line:
"Bormann concurred with this attitude absolutely and I only stated that the question was whether the Reich Minister for the East, who had a name in Germany, after all, would not create too much of a tie by means of a law which would have repercussions in the Reich. But it was to be understood under alleged religious freedom which was to be interpreted by the churches that this could create and we could anticipate that such a law would produce hundreds of new letters and complaints on the part of the churches within the Reich."
Then the second sentence from that says:
"Finally it was agreed that the entire question should not be settled by myself" that is, Lammers, "in the form of a law, but that the Reich Commissioners take the existing religious freedom so to speak for granted and to decree the necessary executive orders."
Then I come to document 072-PS. This is a letter from Bormann to Rosenberg and I should like to read the third paragraph. I quote:
"The Fuehrer states that in the Balkans, the use of your experts would not be necessary, since there are no art objects to be confiscated there. In Belgrade, only the collection of Prince Paul existed which would be returned to him intact. The remaining material of the lodges, etc., would be seized by organizations of Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich." introduction in which Defendant Hess deals with orders he had issued with regard to the treatment of Bormann, and I quote:
"The French civilian population received official instructions and orders by wireless regarding the way they were to treat landing aircraft."
Then I come to document 205-PS. There I should like to quote the introduction which was written by Bormann.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the date of 062-PS?
DR. BERGOLD : 5th of May, 1943, circular letter number 7043.
INTERPRETER: You have 205, my Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: I think I've got it now.
DR. BERGOLD: 5th of May 1943.
THE PRESIDENT: No, but I wanted to know the date of 062-PS. It appears to be 13 March 1940.
DR. BERGOLD: 062-PS? Yes, that's 13 March 1940. That's the one I read previously.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not understand why you read the document in view of paragraph 4 which is as follows:
"Likewise, enemy parachutists are immediately to be arrested or liquidated."
DR. BERGOLD: I shall refer to that in my final speech. It is later that I can describe my reasons.
But, I can give my arguments now if the Tribunal wants me to, but I don't think they do.
THE PRESIDENT: No. I thought you might have another paragraph in the document that you wish to refer to.
DR. BERGOLD: No. I should like to direct your attention to the introduction which is a statement from Defendant Hess and which precedes Bormann's document. I shall now turn to document 205-PS, dated May 5, 1943. I shall quote the following sentence:
"I request in the attached copy that the necessity for a firm but just treatment of the foreign workers be made clear to members of the party and the people." course. I now come to document 025-PS, which is dated 4 September 1942.
THE PRESIDENT: Which number are you going to now?
DR. BERGOLD: I now come to 025-PS, dated 4 September 1942, and I shall quote the last sentence from the second paragraph.
"Therefore," and this is also the opinion of the Reichsmarshal and Reichsleiter Bormann, "the housekeeping problem must be solved through a definite way by the above mentioned one."
And then I quote from paragraph 3, s tarting with the second sentence: "In connection with this, that is,the introduction of eastern women workers," this is also approved by Reichsleiter Bormann, "the illegal bringing of female housekeepers into the Reich by members of the armed forces or various other agencies is to be allowed and furthermore, irrespective of the recruiting, is not to be prevented in the future. The determining factor in the recruiting of Ukranian female workers is this. In accordance with the specific wish of the Fuehrer, only such girls are to be recruited whose stay in Germany will be determined by their conduct, physical appearance, and there will be no scruples." "In practice, recruiting in the case of domestic servants is to be based particularly on volunteers. It is to be carried out by the Service Department of the Reichsfuehrer SS."
and I should like only to refer to my future final speech for the purpose of which I shall use document USSR-172. And also, document Doenitz 91, and with this, Mr. President, my evidence is completed.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, may I suggest that if this witness Kempka can be located, counsel might submit an affidavit or an interrogatory to any persons who have knowledge of the allegeddeath of Defendant Bormann. We certainly would have no objection to it.
DR. BERGOLD: I have no objection either.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, have you any information as to what this witness Kempka can tell us about the death of Bormann?
DR. BERGOLD: According to the affidavit which I have read this morning, he is supposed to have been in prison when Bormann died -- when a tank blew up. He would therefore, then, be an eye witness of this, just as the witness Rattenhuber, from who Krueger got her knowledge. If the witnesses Krueger and Rattenhuber could be found, then I would be satisfied with affidavits and interrogations.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I have seen this statement by 29 June M LJG 11-1 Kempka some time ago, which is in affidavit form, and which has come to cur attention.
But my recollection is that he does not state positively that he saw him die. But I again suggest that we night make further efforts to got an affidavit from him, or an interrogatory, and ask him questions about the circumstances of his death.
THE PRESIDENT: A statement was made to the Tribunal at one time by the prosecution suggesting that Bormann had escaped from the Chancellery in a tank and then the tank had been stopped or blown up on a bridge, and that two of the persons inside the tank had lost seen Bormann wounded, or something of that sort.
MR. DODD: Yes, I think that is the best information.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, if the prosecution has any material in the shape of affidavits or anything of that sort, the Tribunal would like to have then placed before them.
MR. DODD: Yes, sir. I am sure we do not have an affidavit. As I recall, it was last fall when someone sent down here what purported to be a narrative account by Kempka of the last days in Berlin. I will try to look that up and present it to you.
THE PRESIDENT: If you can go into the matter, then possibly they night be located through the investigations which you would make.
MR. DODD: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Then interrogatories or affidavits could be obtained.
MR. DODD: Very well, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Then that conclueds your presentation of evidence on behalf of Bormann?
DR. BERGOLD: That is all I have, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Thank you. Colonel Pokrovsky, is there anything you wish to say? I beg your pardon, Dr. Bergold. You have offered in evidence all the exhibits that you want to offer and have given them exhibit numbers, have you?
29 June M LJG 11-2
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, Mr. President, in my document book.
THE PRESIDENT: You are intending to offer your document book as evidence?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It has exhibit numbers on each document, has it?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes; each document has a number.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. you have arrived at any agreement with Dr. Stahmer on behalf of the defendant Goering with reference to affidavit evidence or witnesses, with reference to the Katyn matter.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: My Lord, we have had three conferences with the defense counsel. After the second meeting, I told the Tribunal of the fact that in the interests of curtailing the proceedings, the Soviet prosecution was in agreement to having the witnesses' evidence submitted so that part of this evidence would be weighed. But about 15 minutes ago, I had a meeting with the defense counsel, and Dr. Exner and Dr. Stahmer told me that they understand the position in such a way that the old decisions regarding the summoning of two witnesses to the Tribunal are still in force. Now we are discussing only additional documents. an agreement when the position is such as it is now. As far as I understand it, such a decision remains with the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal orders that unless an agreement is arrived at, the evidence shall be given entirely by affidavits and that the three witnesses on either side shall be called the first thing on Monday morning at 10 o'clock, unless you can arrive at an agreement before that that the evidence is to be offered in affidavits.
DR. SIEMERS (Counsel for the defendant Raeder): Mr. President, may I be permitted to way something on this subject? A number of defendants' counsel are interested in the case Katyn.
I have had a conference this morning with Dr. Exner and Dr. Stahmer. We had proposed to ask the Tribunal to handle the matter in such a way that two witnesses are to be examined by the defense here before this Tribunal in person. Those would be Oberst Arens and Full Lieutenant von Eichborn, whereas the third witness would not be examined but an affidavit would be submitted instead.
In addition to that, there would be two further affidavits. We believe Mr. President, that in this way we have found a procedure to surest to the Tribunal which would be sufficient and at the same time would save the most time; that is to say, if we hear two witnesses and produce three affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal sees no objection to there being two witnesses called and one affidavit. But their order was that the evidence should be limited to three witnesses on either side, and they, therefore, are not prepared to allow further affidavits to be given. The evidence must be confined to the evidence of three persons on either side. They may give their evidence either by oral testimony or by affidavit.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, as far as I was told, the original decision is supposed to have stated that three witnesses were allowed, without affidavits' being mentioned. And that is why Dr. Stahmer and Dr. Exner had assumed that apart from the witnesses and with regard to certain individual points which should be proved, this could be done by means of affidavits. produced, this would be quicker than if we had three witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid Dr. Stahmer and Dr. Exner drew a wrong inference from the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal intended and intends that the evidence should be limited to the evidence of three witnesses on either side, and whether they give their evidence by oral testimony or by affidavit does not matter. We left it to the Soviet prosecution and to defendant's counsel to see whether they could agree that it should be given by affidavit in order to save time. But that was not intended to extend the number of witnesses who might give evidence.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, in that case, I should be grateful if you would be kind enough to hear from Dr. Stahmer of Professor Exner, since I have not been in Nurnberg recently. I did not, therefore, participate when these details were negotiated and it would probably be better if Dr. Stahmer discussed this. I have just discovered that Dr. Stahmer is here. Perhaps he could speak about it.
DR. STAHMER: I have just heard from Dr. Siemer's words, and I had already drawn your attention to the fact, that during the last discussion we had on this, Dr. Exner and I had understood the situation in such a way that besides the three witnesses we were also allowed to submit affidavits. There were five witnesses who had been allowed originally, with the reservation, however, that only three of them could be heard in this courtroom. We were under the impression, therefore, that those witnesses out of the five who had been granted us who were not being heard could submit affidavits. according to which only three -
THE PRESIDENT: That is not the recollection of the Tribunal; and if you say so, you must produce written evidence that that was the decision. The Tribunal's recollection is not that five witnesses were allowed.
DR. STAHMER: Yes; I shall submit those decisions to the Tribunal in writing. I cannot remember off-hand when they were made, but it was originally five witnesses, and then I claimed another witness, and he was also allowed. It was only afterwards that the decision was made that only three could be heard before this Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, when the order was made limiting it to three out of five, there was no reference in that order to affidavits, as far as I know.
DR. STAHMER: No, affidavits were not mentioned.
THE PRESIDENT: What I am telling you is that the Tribunal in making that order of limitation intended to limit the whole of the evidence to three witnesses on either side, because the matter is only a subsidiary allegation of fact, and the Tribunal thinks that at this stage of the proceedings such an allegation of fact ought not to be investigated by a great number of witnesses, and three witnesses is quite sufficient on either side.
that it should have to hear, any evidence except the evidence of three witnesses, either by oral evidence or by affidavit.
(The Tribunal adjourned until Monday 1 July at 1000 Hours.)
against Hermann Wilhelm Goering, et al.,
THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make. which the Defense Counsel or the Prosecution wish to use shall be offered in evidence by them. This evidence will then become a part of the record, subject to any objections. books as soon as possible and put in their requests for translations.
Dr. Stahmer.
DR. STAHMER (Counsel for the defendant Goering): With reference to the events at Katyn, the Indictment contains only the remark that in September 1941, 11,000 prisoners of war who were Polish officers were killed in the woods of Katyn near Smolensk. The Russian Prosecution did not submit the details until the s ession of 14 February 1946, and on that date, the document USSR 54 was submitted to the Tribunal. The document is an official report from the Extraordinary State Commission, which was given the task of investigating the case of Katyn. This Commission, after -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal are aware of the document, and they only want you to call your evidence; that is all.
DR. STAHMER: I only wanted to add, Mr. President, that according to this document, there are two accusations: one, that the time of the killing of the Polish prisoners of war was the autumn of 1941, and the second statement is that the killing was carried out by some German military authority, which was using the camouflage of the staff of the Engineer Batallion 527.
THE PRESIDENT: That is in the document, is it not? I have just to you we know the document. We only want you to call your evidence.
DR. STAHMER: Then, as my first witness, I shall call Colonel Friedrich Ahrens to the witness stand.
DR. SIEMERS (Counsel for defendant Raeder): Mr. President, I have a request before the beginning of the evidence in the case of Katyn. The Tribunal decided that three witnesses would be heard, and it hinted that in the interest of equality, the Prosecution could only produce three witnesses, either by means of direct examination or by means of an affidavit. In the interest of that same principle of equality, I should be interested if the Soviet Delegation, as well as the Defense, should, before the beginning of the evidence, state the names of their witnesses. The Defense have supplied the names of the witnesses weeks ago. Unfortunately, until now, I have still not been able to hear the same from the Soviet Delegation. It is after all in the interest of the principle of equality between the Defense and the Prosecution that we should hear the names of the witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: General Rudenko, were you going to give me the names of the witnesses?
GENERAL RUDENKO: Yes, Mr. President. We reported to the General Secretary of the Tribunal that the Soviet Prosecution intends to call three witnesses to the stand: Professor Prosorovsky, who is the Chief of the Medical Legal Experts Commission; the Bulgarian subject, Markov, who was a member of the so-called International Commission created by the Germans; and Professor Bazilovsky, who is tie former mayor of Smolensk during the time of the German occupation.
FRIEDRICH AHRENS, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Will you state your full name?
Q Will you repeat this oath after me: truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
BY DR. STAHMER:
Q Mr. Witness, did you, as a professional officer in the German armed forces, participate in the second World War?
A Yes, of course; as a professional officer I did participate.
Q And what rank did you have at the end?
Q Were you stationed in the Eastern Theater of war?
Q In what capacity?
Q What were the tasks of your regiment? communications between the army group and the neighboring units and subordinate units, and to keep them up, as well as to establish the necessary communications which were needed for defending operations.
Q Did your regiment have any special tasks apart from that? everything in order to prevent an assault attack, and to do everything to defend themselves in such a manner, with the forces at their disposal, that the capture of the regiment should be prevented. its position, because we had with us a lot of highly secret material which belonged to our staff.
Q Your regiment was Signal Regiment 537. Was there an engineering battalion 537, that is to say, the same number? the same number, nor do I believe that there was such a unit.
Q And when did you come under? Who was your superior? case during the entire time when I was with the army group. My superior was General Oberhaueser.
its first section, which was directly neighboring to the regimental staff, came partly under the Commander of Smolensk; and all orders which I received from that last named source came via General Oberhaueser, who either approved or refused the commitment of the regiment for a particular purpose.
Q Where was your staff accommodated?
Q I am having the sketch shown to you. Please tell us whether that is your sketch.
Q I am now going to have a second sketch shown to you. Will you please have a look at that one also, and will you tell me whether that is a correct picture of the situation?
A May I briefly explain this sketch to you? At the right hand corner, that large red spot is the town of Smolensk. West of Smelensk, and on either side of the road to Witebsk, was the position of the staff of the army group, together with the air force corps. I refer to the position South of KrassnyBor. I have marked the actual accommodations room for Army Group Center. occupied by troops who came directly under the army group; there was not a house which was empty in that area. Katyn, of the whole forest around Katyn. That is the white spot which is indicated on the sketch. It measures about one square kilometer, and it is a wood. On the southern edge of this small wood there was the so-called Dnieper Castle, which was the staff quarters of the regiment. regiment there was the number one company of the regiment, which was the signal company, which did teleprinting and telephone work for the army group. About three kilometers away from the staff there was the wireless company. There war no buildings within about one kilometer of the regimental staff quarters.
Now, this house was a two-storey building which was fairly large. It had about fourteen to fifteen rooms,several bathing establishments, a rifle range, garrisons, and so on, and itvas most suitable to accommodate the regimental staff.
Our regiment retained this particular position continually.
Q Were there any more high-ranking staffs nearby?
A Higher staffs? Yes. There was the Army Group, which I have already mentioned, then a corps staff from the Air Force, andseveral section staffs. Then there was the Railway Deputy for the Army Group, who was at Guesdewo, and there was a special train. place near you had been most secret and most suspicious. Will you please, therefore, answer the following questions with particularly great care?
How many Germans were there in the staff, and what positions did they fill? approximately eighteen to twenty non-commissioned officers and enlisted men in the ranks; that is to say, as few as I could have in a staff, and every man in the staff fulfilled his task.
Q Did you have Russian personnel in your staff? living in the immediate vicinity of the regimental staff quarters. The auxiliary volunteers remained with the regimental staff continually, whereas the female personnel was changed occasionally. Some of those women came from Smolensk and they lived in a separate building which also belonged to the regimental staff. their conduct? the staff, which did not solely apply to the Russian personnel. staff,which not only knew the positions of the army groups, but also of its neighboring units, and which also knew of the intentions of the army group because they were clearly recognizable. Therefore, the task of secrecy had to be looked after particularly carefully, which it was my duty to take care of. Consequently, the rooms which contained this material were closed, by me, for ordinary traffic, and only those persons were admitted -- particularly with reference to officers -- who had been passed by me.
However, there were a few non-commissioned officers and other ranks who were put under oath.
Q To which rooms did this "no admission" order refer? room, and partly, although in a somewhat looser way, to the room of the adjutant. All remaining rooms in the house and the site were free -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, how is this evidence about actual conditions in these staff headquarters relevant to this question?
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, in the Russian document the allegation is contained that in this staff building there had been particularly secret goings-on, and that the Russian personnel had a strict order to keep quiet imposed on them by Colonel Ahrens, that the rooms had been locked, and that it had only been permitted to enter the rooms accompanied by guards. With reference to this, I have put these questions, in order to clear the question and prove that these events have a perfectly natural explanation because of the tasks which were given to the regiment and which need, quite obviously, a certain amount of secrecy.
For that reason, I have put these questions; in other words, in rebuttal of the statement in the document.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. STAHMER: Incidentally, I have finished with this particular type of question. BY DR. STAHMER: soldiers?
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, may I remark with reference to this question that once again there had been an allegation that this guarding had only been introduced by the regiment, whereas before that, there had been free entry into the woods. And here again, something was derived which was unfavorable to the regiment.
THE WITNESS: In order to secure anti-aircraft precautions for the staff headquarters, I prevented any timber's being cut in the immediate vicinity of the staff headquarters for the purpose of fuel. During this winter, the situation was such that the units cut wood wherever they could get it.
position during which half of my house was torn away. It was quite impossible to find any other accomodations because of the overcrowding of the area. Therefore, I took all precautions to see to it that this fairly thin wood would preserved so as to serve as cover Since, on the other hand, I am an opponent of prohibition signs. I pointed out to troop units that they should leave us out trees as anti-aircraft cover The Wood was not closed off at all, particularly as a road had to be kept open for dispatch bearers and couriers, and only now a then I posted sentries, whom I sent into the woods to have a look whether we had our trees left intact.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, at a time that is convenient to you, you will, of course, draw our attention to the necessary dates, the date at which the unit took over its headquarters and the date at which it left.
DR. STAHMER: Very well. BY DR. STAHMER:
Q When did year regiment move into the Dnieper River castle? preceding group had left that area. It was in August, 1941, and it was confiscated together with the other accommodation units of the army group. It was occupied by the regimental staff until August 1943, and remained occupied by my regimental staff as long as I was there. in?
Q And then when did the staff arrive actually?
Q Who was the regimental commander at the time?
Q When did you take over the regiment? 1941, and after taking over the unit, I took over the command of the regiment. It was at the end of November, I think, or the 30th of November, if I remember rightly.