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.
Q Was there a proper handing over from Bedenck to you? the very considerable task which this regiment had. Add to that that my superior, General Oberhaueser, was an extraordinarily painstaking superior, and he convinced himself personally of such details, and that from the instructions which I had received, I would be fully in a position to take over the task which the regiment. Is that true, and what would you attribute that to? regiment to prepare all that was necessary in order to defend themselves against assault. Considering the small number of men which I had in my regimental staff, I had to take the necessary steps that would enable me to have replacements in the shortest possible time. These were formed, and then there was a wireless communication with the regimental staff. I ordered that defense maneuvers should be held and defense positions should be prepared around the regimental staff headquarters, and that there should be continuous maneuvers and exorcises in these positions. I partly ran these maneuvers. This was done with the aid of the regimental staff. Of course, shots were fired, particularly since we were preparing ourselves for fighting day and night. traffic moving towards your staff building. Will you please tell us what the significance of this traffic was?
which was increased since, in the spring of 1941 I was having the house rebuilt.
I think that it had been destroyed through air attacks. But of course the maneuvers which were held nearby increased the traffic. The units which were at least 400 kilometers away from the regimental staff headquarters could only, and had to, maintain personal contact with the regiment through the regimental staff. That is the only way they could work with them.
Q. There is supposed to have been considerable truck traffic which has been described as vicious.
A. Apart from size -- it was comparitively small -- these commanders were brought un in trucks; but so was, of course, the entire building material which I required. Apart from that, traffic was not unusually heavy.
Q. Have you gained knowledge of the fact that about 25 kilometers west of Smolensk there were three Russian prisoner of war camps, which had originally been inhabited by Poles and which had been abandoned by the Russians when the German troops approached in July 1941?
A. During that period, I had not yet arrived. But never during my entire time which I served in Russia did I see a single Pole; not did I hear of Poles.
Q. It has been alleged that an order had been issued from Berlin according to which Polish prisoners of war would be shot. Have you had knowledge of such an order?
A. No, no. I have never heard of such an order.
Q. Have you received such an order from any other unit?
A. I have already just told you that I never heard of such an order; in other words, I did not receive it, either.
Q. Were any Poles shot by direct instructions from you?
A. No Poles were shot on instructions of mine; and, in fact, no one at all was shot on orders given by me. I have never given such an order in my life.
Q. Then, you did not arrive until November 1941. Have you heard anything about your predecessor, General Bedenck having given orders for any such measures?
A. I have not heard anything about that. But I, with my regimental staff, with whom I lived together for nine months of such close ties and such close connection -- I knew my people so well, and they knew me so well, too, that I am perfectly convinced that this perpetration, or this deed, was not permitted by my predecessor; nor could it have been permitted by any single member of my regiment. It would have been absolutely that I would have had -
THE PRESIDENT: This is argument, you know, Dr. Stahmer. This is not evidence; it is argument. He is telling you what he thinks might have been the case.
DR. STAHMER: I asked whether he had heard from members of his regiment about the story.
THE PRESIDENT: The answer to that would be "no", I suppose, that he had not heard -- not that he was convinced, that he had not done it.
DR. STAHMER: Very well.
BY DR. STAHMER:
effect that there was a grave hill, a mound in the woods at Katyn? snow, oneof my associates pointed out to me that in a certain spot there was some sort of a mound. It couldn't really be called a "mound." There was supposed to be a birch cross and that birch cross I have seen. During the year of 1942, my associates kept telling me that there in our words shootings were supposed to have taken place but I didn't pay any attention to it first of all, although in the summer of 1942, my attention was drawn to it. I pointed out to the army group commander that there were such conversations and he had told me that he had also heard such rumors.
Q Did these stories prove true later on? ascertained that; in fact, we were concerned with the graves here. During the year 1943 -- I think either January or February -- quite accidentally there was a wolf in this word and first of all I believe we were concerned with the wolf and then we followed the tracks with an expert and we then saw that there were scratchings along that hill with the cross and I had inquiries made as to what this was and somebody told me "human bones" and I informed the officer responsible for war graves in the area of this fact because I believed that perhaps we had a grave of soldiers who had been killed, a number of which such graves were in our immediate vicinity.
Q Then, how did the excavations take place?
A I am not informed about that in detail. Professor Dr. Butz arrived one day through orders from the army group and he informed me that in my little wood, excavations were to be carried out because rumors and that he would now inform me of the fact that these excavations in my wood would take place. excavation work? told me that he had conclusive evidence regarding the date and time of the shootings. Amongst other things, he showed me letters which I cannot now remember very exactly but I do remember some sort of diary which he passed over to me and there were dates followed by certain written remarks which I couldn't read because they were written in Police and in connection with this, he explained to me that these notes had been made by a Polish officer and that he had worked for the past months and that at the end of the diary there was a date, the spring of 1940, and that the lines contained the fear that something horrible was happening to them.
That was only the sense, of course, which I am giving to you now. he was assuming? that the shootings had taken place in the spring of 1940 and that he expressed his convictions repeatedly in my presence; later on, too, when the commission viewed the grave and when I had to place my house at the disposal of these commissioners to accommodate them, I personally did not have any dealings whatever with the excavation work itself or the commission as such. All I had to do was to place the house at their disposal. I was a landlord with the corresponding duty. to Katyn from the outside, who were buried in the little wood. Do you know anything about that?
Q Would you have had to notice it? officers would have reported it to me, because my officers were continuously in regimental fighting posts, whereas I as a regimental commander was of course travelling a great deal. The officer who was there continuously in those days was Lieutenant Hodt, whose address became known to me last night from a letter.
Q Were Russian prisoners of war used for these excavations?
Q Can you tell us the number?
A I cannot give you exact information because I didn't concern myself with this excavation work until later because of die dreadful stench around our house which was revolting to us, but I believe that I can give you an estimate of the figure. Perhaps therewere forty to fifty people.
Q It has been alleged that they were shot afterwards. Do you have any knowledge of that?
A I have no knowledge of that and I haven't heard it at any time.
DR. STAHMER: I have no further questions, Mr. President. BY DR. KRANZBUEHLER (Counsel forDoenitz): any of the inhabitants?
A Yes. At the beginning of 1943, a Russian married couple were working there, who lived eight hundred yards away and they were bee-keepers. I, too, kept bees -- and I came into close contact with this married couple. then the excavation was carried out, approximately in May 1943, I told them that they ought to know, after all, since they wereliving directly next to the graves, when these shootings had taken place; thereupon, these people told me this had happened, in the spring of 1940, and that on the station of Guesdowa there had been railway trucks of fifty tons each in which more than two hundred Poles in uniform had arrived, who were taken to the woods in lorries. They had said that they had heard lots of shots and screams, too.
Q Was the wood closed to the population at the time?
THE PRESIDENT: That is a leading question. I don't think you should ask leading questions. BY DR. KRANZBUEHLER: time? from the local inhabitants, civilians could not enter it during the time the Russians were there. The remains of the fence were still visible when I came. The fence exists in my sketch and it is a black line. as to who the former owners were?
A Yes, I did make inquiries because I was interested. The house was built in a rather peculiar way. It had a cinema plant and it had a rifle range and, ofcourse, that interested me; but I failed to ascertain anything definite during the entire time when I was there. other graves found?
were a number of other small graves which were found in the vicinity of the castle which contained the decayed bodies; that is to say, skeletons which had disintegrated and these were graves containing perhaps six, eight, or a few more skeletons which were both male and female skeletons. This could be recognized very clearly because most of them had rubber shoes which were fully preserved that there were also remains of handbags and pocketbooks.
Q How long had these skeletons been in the grounds?
A That, I cannot tell you. I only know that they were decayed and had disintegrated. The bones were preserved but the skeleton structure was no longer preserved.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Thank you very much.
DR. LATERNSER: Dr. Laternser, counsel for the General Staff and the OKW.
THEPRESIDENT: DR. Laternser, you know the Tribunal's ruling.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you have no right to ask any questions of the witness here.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, particularly in this most unusual case, I was going to ask you to allow me to put questions.
THE PRESIDENT: I said to you that you know the Tribunal's ruling and the Tribunal will not hear you. We have already ruled upon this once or twice in consequence of your objections and the Tribunal will not hear you.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, the case of Katyn isone of the most serious accusations raised against the group.
THEPRESIDENT: The Tribunal is perfectly well aware of the nature of the allegations about Katyn and the Tribunal does not propose to make any exceptional rule in that case and it therefore will not hear you and you will kindly sit down.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, in that case, I wish to be clear that by this means in this case, I feel that my defense is limited unduly.
THE PRESIDENT: As Dr. Laternser knows perfectly well, he is entitled to apply to the Commission to call any witness who is called here if his evidence bears upon the case of the particular organizations for which Dr. Laternser appeared.
I don't want to hear anything further.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, that way which was pointed out to me has no practical significance. I cannot have every witness who appears here called by the commission.
DR. SIEMERS: Dr. Siemers
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, you are appearing for the Defendant Doenitz, is it, or Raeder ?
DR. SIEMERS: Defendant Raeder.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, unless the questions you are going to ask particularly refer to the case of the Defendant Raeder, the Tribunal is not prepared to hear any further cross examination. The matter has been generally covered by Dr. Stahmer and also by Dr. Kranzbuehler and, therefore, unless the questions which you want to ask have some particular reference to the case of Raeder, the Tribunal will not hear it.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I had merely assumed that there were two reasons on the strength of which I could put a few questions : firstly, because the Tribunal themselves have stated that within the framework of the conspiracy all Defendants had been participants; and my second reason was that, according to the description, the statements by the prosecution, Grand Admiral Raeder, too, is considered a member of the supposedly criminal organizations, the General Staff and the OKW. It was for that reason I wanted to ask one or two supplementary questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, if there were any allegations that in any way bore on the case against Defendant Raeder, the Tribunal would of course allow you to ask questions; but there is no allegation which in any way connects the Defendant Raeder with the allegations about the Katyn Woods.
DR. SIEMERS: I am grateful to the Tribunal for that statement, Mr. President.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, may I please put a question to you ? May I have the question put to the prosecution, to whose responsibility the case of Katyn is going to be attributed ?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't propose to answer questions of that sort. BY COLONEL SMIRNOV:
Q. Please tell me, Witness, since when, exactly, were you located in the territory of the Smolensk district ?
A. I have already answered that question. Beginning with the second half of November, 1941.
Q. Please answer me, where were you until the second part of November, 1941? Did you have any relationship to Katyn or to Smolensk as a district ? Were you physically there, were you personally there in September and October 1941 ?
A. No, I wasn't there.
Q. That means that neither in September nor in October, 1941, did you know what events occurred there at that time in the Katyn forest ?
A. During that period I was not there, but earlier I have mentioned that -
Q. No, I am only interested in a short question. Were you there personally or not ? Were you in a position to see yourself what was happening there or not ? Please answer that.
THE PRESIDENT: He says he wasn't there.
THE WITNESS: No, I wans't there.
THE PRESIDENT: He said he wasn't there in September or October, 1941.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Thank you, Mr. President. BY COLONEL SMIRNOV:
Q. Maybe you recall the family names of the Russian women workers who were employed at the little castle in the woods ?
A. These female workers were not working in several different houses. They merely worked as auxiliary kitchen personnel in Dnieper castle. I didn't know their names ever at all.
Q. That means that the Russian women workers were only employed in the villa where the Staff headquarters were located ?
A. I believe that question wasn't translated too well. I didn't understand it.
Q. I asked you whether the Russian women workers were employed exclusively in the villa where the Staff headquarters were located ? Is that right ?
A. The women workers worked for the regimental staff as auxiliary workers in the kitchen, and that means as such auxiliary workers in the kitchen they worked on their property; and by their property I mean this particular house with the adjoining attached houses, the stables, the garage, the cellars, the central heating plants; that is where they worked.