No further orders to United States submarines concerning tactics toward Japanese merchantmen, throughout the war, were based on reprisal, although specific instances of Japanese submarines committing atrocities toward United States merchant marine survivors became known and would have justified such a course."
"Question: Has this order or have these orders of the Japanese government been announced as reprisals?"
"Answer: This question is not clear. Therefore I make no reply thereto."
" Question: On the basis of what Japanese tactics was reprisal considered justified?"
"Answer: The unrestricted submarine and air warfare ordered by the Chief of Naval Operations on 7 December 1941 was justified by the Japanese attacks on that date on United States bases and on both armed and unarmed ships and nationals without warning or declaration of war."
"The above record of testimony has been examined by me on this date and is in all respects accurate and true." Signed, Chester W. Nimitz, Fleet Admiral, United States Navy. given by the former judge, Jaeckel, about the sentences given by Naval Courts for the protection of the indigenous population when they were attacked. This document has been admitted by the High Tribunal and is present in translation and because of that fact I do not need to read it.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give us the number?
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Doenitz 49, Mr. President.
Then, Mr. President, some weeks back I made application to admit extracts from the protocols of a war crimes court at Oslo. These had been used by the prosecution on the occasion of the cross examination of Grand Admiral Doenitz. At that time they were not assigned a number. From these records I selected some extracts which are meant to prove that in the case of the torpedo boat No. 345, whose crew were shot because of the commando order, that this was a beat which was acting on sabotage mission and in dealing with the treatment of these prisoners the Commander in Chief of the Navy, specifically, Admiral Doenitz, was not notified of the treatment accorded these men; that, on the other hand, this question was handled and disposed of directly through discussions between Gauleiter Terboven and the Fuehrer's Headquarters.
I am asking that the High Tribunal admit this asa piece of evidence, since this document was used by the Prosecution.
The number I shall assign to it will be Doenitz No. 107.
COLONEL PHILLIMOR : Your Honor, I don't know if the Tribunal has got before it the answer which the prosecution have put into this application.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we have just looked at it now.
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: Broadly speaking, it comes to this, that we are quite prepared to put in the whole proceedings but we should object to extracts being put in; that is, amongst the affidavits and the evidence of some of the witnesses material to support the points for which Counsel for Defendant Doenitz contends. There is, on the other hand, a body of evidence the other way on all those points. That is why, your Honor -
THE PRESIDENT: Wouldn't it save translation if you put in the passages in the document upon which you rely?
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: If that would be more convenient, My Lord, we can do that.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know how long the document is. It may be very long indeed.
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: The whole proceedings are very long. The trial lasted for four days.
THE PRESIDENT: Then it would be appropriate that you should pick out the parts on which you rely and Dr. Kranzbuehler can put in -
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: MY Lord, it is put in the answer that the document which was proved in the Defendant's case against this Defendant was an affidavit by the Judge Advocate, who wet out the effect of the evidence accepted by the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal follows that, but it thinks that it is desirable that you should put in the passages upon which you rely as well as the defense counsel.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: May I submit this document, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: What is the number again, please?
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: No. 107, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: And it Contains extracts from these proceedings, does it?
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Yes, extracts.
THE PRESIDENT: The prosecution will put in their extracts and we will consider them both.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Mr. President, then I have a question dealing with the documents of the case which we have just dealt with, the case of Katyn. The witness, Professor Markov, mentioned the expert opinion given by the Italian exper, Professor Palmieri, as a piece of evidence for the reason that insects had allegedly been found among the corpses. These insects are not mentioned, but rather, larvae are mentioned in this expert opinion, and to me the difference is that insects are flying about during the summer whereas larvae hide and conceal themselves during the winter months.
Mr. President, may I submit this document?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I should like to make just one factual remark. In the protocol of Professor Palmieri it was indicated that the larvae were discovered inside the clothes of the corpses. I don't know where the insects were found. That is why I don't think that the presentation of the document by defense counsel should be permitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kranzbuehler, you are specifying a particular document referred to in the White Book, is that right?
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: And you mean the whole of the document?
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: That document is only about one page long, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you may put it in, subject to its being translated
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Very well, Mr. President.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Mr. President, we are talking about one document which is a report on the dissection of the corpses performed by Professor Palmieri. This is just a protocol of the dissection by Professor Palmieri.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it referred to in the conclusions or not?
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: It is put in on the same basis as the testimony of Professor Markov. It is the findings on the autopsy which Professor Palmieri performed.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Mr. President, I have another document which I should like to introduce in the case of Katyn, which I received from Polish sources just a few days ago. This is a document set down in England, which was published in London in 1946. The title is, "Report on the Massacre of Polish Officers in the Katyn Wood." this document to the High Tribunal as evidence. However, before I set up certain pieces of evidence and proof, I would like to ask that the High Tribunal examine this document, for there may be doubts whether it actually can be used as a piece of evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kranzbuehler, this document is printed for private circulation only. It has no printer's name on it, and it is entirely anonymous.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Yes, Mr. President, those were my own doubts. That is why I voiced them. I submitted this document because of the significance of this case. I thought the Tribunal nevertheless would want to take notice of this document and its contents.
THE PRESIDENT: No, the Tribunal thinks it would be improper to look at a document of this nature.
GENERAL RUDENKO: Mr. President, I should like to make one remark because the statement of the defense counsel that this document was received from the Polish Delegation astounds me. I should like to know from what Polish Delegation he received this document, because the Polish Delegation of the Polish Government could not possibly possess such a Fascist document as this.
THE PRESIDENT: I think General Rudenko misunderstood what Dr. Kranzbuehler said.
DR. SAUTER (Counsel for the defendant Funk): Mr. President, five interrogatories were granted to me on behalf of the defendant Funk. When I presented my case, I could not submit these affidavits because they had not been translated. lations have been submitted to the High Tribunal. I ask your indulgence in permitting me to submit them to the High Tribunal at this point. 2, will be assigned Exhibit No. 16. This is a rather extensive interrogation of the witness Landfried who was active in the ministry of the defendant Funk in the capacity of a state secretary. I do not believe I need to read this record in detail, but the first question deals with the economic policy represented by Funk as he exercised it in the occupied countries. He expressly pictures it in the same way as it was pictured by Funk.
Under No.2, he deals with the directions given by the defendant Funk to the military commanders and to the Reich commanders of the occupied countries. exploitation and plundering of the occupied territories. He confirms the fact, and testifies to it, that the defendant Funk always opposed plundering, that he fought the black market, that he opposed devaluation of the currency and foreign exchange, that he tried to maintain currency on an even keel.
Funk tried to avoid financial overburdening of the occupied countries, specifically, to have the costs of occupation lowered to the lowest possible level. explains the activities of the defendant Funk in the Ministry of Economics, specifically German preparations in the event of a war. General Plenipotentiary for Economy, and he concludes that in practice it was just a matter of paper. take up the valuable time of the High Tribunal, for in the main these are only repetitions of statements that have already been made. who, as I have already said, for years was the deputy of the defendant, describe the entire personality of the defendant, his attitude toward the problem of terror, and the fundamental attitude that he represented as to the use of foreign workers.
Mr. President, I ask that the High Tribunal take judicial notice of this rather extensive work, and I have just quoted it briefly.
The next interrogatory was deposed by the witness Emil Puhl. This was the same witness who was interrogated in this courtroom about other questions. This is the interrogatory and the answers of the witness Emil Puhl, Document Book Funk, Supplement No 3.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, has this interrogatory been granted?
DR. SAUTER: yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: He gave his evidence. We don't generally allow interrogatories to witnesses who have given their evidence.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the matter was like this: As far back as December I had asked to be granted this interrogatory and repeatedly asked about it, but it did not arrive. During two days of cross examination, this witness Emil Puhl was questioned on entirely different matters, and was brought in for an entirely different matter by the Prosecution, the matter of gold teeth, and the SS relation to these gold teeth.
This matter, as raised by the Prosecution, was not the same as the matter granted for my interrogatory. I believe I was granted this in February.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, what I mean is this: Supposing the Tribunal is asked to grant an interrogatory and it grants the interrogatory, and then the witness is subsequently called to give evidence. When he is called to give evidence, he ought to be questioned upon all the matters which are relevant to the trial. The Tribunal doesn't want to have to read his evidence in one place and then his interrogatory in some other place.
Is there any objection, Mr. Dodd, to accepting it in this case?
MR. DODD: No, I have no objection, Mr. President. That is the situation. It was granted before Puhl was called. He was called here for cross-examination and I do not recall off-hand whether or not counsel inquired concerning these matters that are contained therein. We have no objections. It may be some annoyance to the tribunal which we regret.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the witness Puhl during his examination as to the french camps, had questions submitted to him on cross-examination and they were answered by him as the Prosecution Suggested. Therefore, he was not only interrogated about the questions that I put to him but also the questions put by the Prosecution were submitted to him. Therefore, I shall submit this document, which is an interrogatory deposed by Emil Puhl, document book of Walter Funk, Supplement number 3 and shall be assigned the exhibit number 17. interrogatory, deals solely with matters entirely different from the matters dealt with here in his examination. He dealt withthe preparations which the Reichspresident, the Reichsbank President, Dr. Funk, made in the war. That was one point. currency.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal thinks you need not read the interrogatory but the Tribunal will allow it to go in in this case.
DR. SAUTER: Very well, Mr. President. I wanted to sketch the contents to you briefly. This has already been granted by the tribunal and is the testimony given by Heinz Kallus, to be found in document book Walter Funk supplement 4 and shall be assigned exhibit number Funk 18 and I should like to submit this testimony to the general secretary and I should like to ask, in order to save time, that the Tribunal take judicial notice of the contents of the testimony offered. deposed by Mr. Messersmith, a supplement to a statement he has already made, which has been submitted to the tribunal.
This is very brief, in fact it is but one sentence and it may be found in Walter Funk supplement number 5 and shall be assigned exhibit number 19.
I should like to submit this book as well. And now I have arrived at the conclusion of my report, Mr. President. Thank you very much.
DR. THOMA (Counsel for defendant Rosenberg): Mr. President, I should like to submit to the Tribunal the testimony of the witness Boil. Up to now I have received this only in English. I should like to submit this at RO 50. I had this given back to me by the translation department. taken by theEastern Ministry in the recruitment of labor and it is of such significance that I ask the permission of the tribunal to read it or to have it read. Since I am not entirely conversant with the English language I should like to ask to have an interpreter read this interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, has this document been offered in evidence before? It was granted, was it, by the Tribunal, this interrogatory?
DR. THOMA: Yes, indeed, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it necessary to read it? Cannot you submit it in evidence and the Tribunal will consider it?
DR. THOMA: I should leave that to the discretion of the Tribunal. I wanted to point out only that this is very important testimony which is decisive as to the treatment of manpower by the Eastern Ministry. However, I shall leave that to the judgment of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Cannot you summarize it?
DR. THOMA: Mr. President, I have only an English copy. I have only an English version and I do not wish to attempt to do anything withit but there are only two pages. I believe the interpreter will read that in no time at all.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the interpreter read it then.
(ENGLISH INTERPRETER READ THE DOCUMENT AS FOLLOWS:)
"Copy -- RO Exhibit Number 50.
"Completed interrogatory of Ministerialrat.
"Dr. Boil behalf of Rosenberg.
"The witness having been duly sworn, states:
"Q Were you the permanent official (Sachbearbeiter) in the East Ministry (Ost Ministerium) in charge of the questions of labor and social policy?
"A Yes, I was one of ten permanent officials. We originally started with 52 but as the East Front receded the staff was finally reduced to ten.
I was in charge of the administration side of the labor and social policy. The head of the department was Landesbaurenfuehrer Peukert.
"Q Was the East Ministry in favor of voluntary recruiting of workers in the East?
"A Yes, of voluntary recruiting only, my instructions being that it should only be carried out on this basis.
"Q Are any results known?
"A Yes, but the results were not as great as anticipated, only some 300,000 to 400,000 volunteers andmost of these were from Ukraine, Lithuania and Estonia.
"Q Were there any negotiations about decreasing the quotas ordered by the GBA?
"A Yes, negotiations for decreasing the quotas took place but broke down owing to Sauckel demanding something like a million workers to be transferred to the interior.
"Q Who was responsible for the care and control of the East Workers (Ostarbeiter) in the Reich?
"A The German Arbeits Front and the Reichsnahrstand were responsible for the care of the East workers, the former for workers in munitions and heavy industry and the latter for agricultural workers.
"Q What was the point of view of the department, ASO, ---".
DR. THOMA: That, if I may interrupt, was the working social and political department of the East Ministry. (INTERPRETER CONTINUING) "Q What was the point of view of the department, ASO, concerning the treatment of the East Workers in the Reich?
"A The viewof my department ASO was that the voluntary recruiting of workers on a free movement basis, thus taking them out of the bashedwin enclosed factories, would be the best method of treatment. We also advocated the removal of the armbadges worn originally on the arm and later on the left wrist, which carried the word 'East' so as to distinguish them from workers from the West, who never at any time were badges.
The wording being later changed to 'Greater Russia', 'White Russia' and 'Ukraine', the people from the Baltic States did not wear the arm badge.
Certain Russians, small groups of Cossacks, Tartars and one or two others were not.compelled to wear the arm band, as they were anti-Bolshevistic and pro-German and a certain proportion of these were eventually called up into the German Army. Some 7,000 youths for Ruthania were called up by ASO and these were apprenticed at Junkers Works.
"Q. Is the Central Office (Zentralistelle) for the Eastern Peopl (Ostvoelker) at the East Ministry known to you?
How is this organized?
"A. Yes, it was considered to be a consulate for the East; members of the Staff were partly Germans and partly local employees from the East who were considered suitable for such employment. Some of the foreign employees were placed at the disposal of the County offices to look after the interests of their fellow countrymen working in the countries. At the Central Office were instituted offices for each of the Eastern States, each office being controlled by a German, some of whom had originally come from those States. There was also a Welfare Branch which was run by persons from these Eastern States, to look after the comfort, etc., of their individual countrymen; there was also a religious branch which was run by clergy from these countries, but this branch was not very successful as there was an insufficiency of priests.
"Q. Now, with the help of the DAF, were the complaints followed up?
"A. The interests of foreign workers were always looked after; missions were sent to the various concentration of East workers to find out how they were progressing and what kind of treatment they were receiving. These missions dealt with complaints submitted to them on their visists, but the Central office had to deal also with written complaints received through the post.
"Q. Is a printed circular to the authorities in the country known to you that ordered just treatment? Details? What was the story about the families who were evacuated by the Army Group Center and about the children 10-14 years old?
"A. Yes, there was a circular issued, dealing with this question, and it gave details at great length for the just treatment of the East workers. This circular was issued at the request of the Ministry of the East, through Saukel. A second circular was issued by Rosenberg dealing with the just treatment of workers from the East only.
I have no knowledge of this story, as this was dealt with entirely by the Army Group Center.
"Q. Does the witness know the pamphlet issued by the East ministry to the managers of enterprises concerning the nations of Eastern Europe and the attitude towards them?"
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, that affidavit does not seem to be short at all. It all seems to be cumulative. Every word of it is what we have heard before, and heard not only once, but over and over again.
THE INTERPRETER: Dr. Thoma has just said that the last sentence is coming up.
DR. THOMA: Two short sentences.
THE INTERPRETER: "There were two pamphlets issued; one issued by Saukel, and the other issued in conjunction with DAF and Saukel and the Ministry for the East.
"Q. Has he one handy?
"A. I have not got a copy of this pamphlet.
"(Signed) Beil".
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, the Tribunal relies on Counsel, you know, and when you tell us that this is an important affidavit, we rely on what you tell us, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the reading of the affidavit was ah absolute wast of the Tribunal's time.
DR. THOMA: I should like to put another request to the High Tribunal. Reichhauptstellenleiten Dr. Oeppert, of the office of the Delegate of the Fuehrer for the Supervision of the Entire Ideologic al and Spiritual Enlightenment under Rosenberg. This affidavit has not been granted to me, but I already have it at my disposal and in my hand.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the Prosecution seen it?
DR. THOMA: No, Mr. President, I do not think so. I made my application with the Genenral Secretary. Whether this request has been submitted yet to the Prosecution I do not know.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the only application that we have got so far as I can see, is an interrogatory to Dr. Keoppen in lieu of Dr. Stellbreacht.
Is that the one that you are speaking about now?
DR. THOMA: No, Mr. President, I was granted permission to interrogate Dr. Koeppen instead of Dr. Stellbreacht, and the interrogatory has already been sent off. This, however, is a new application regarding Dr. Oeppert, and that has not been decided THE PRESIDENT : You had better submit it to the Prosecution and see whether they have any comment to make on it, and we can take it up tomorrow.
DR. THOMA : Thank you very much, Mr. President.
DR. KUBUSCHOK ( Counsel for defendant von Papen ) : In the case of Papen, there are eight interrogatories which have not been disposed of. Three of them have just been returned in the last few days and are in the stage of being translated. I ask permission that when I receive my last interrogatory, I may submit all six at one time to the High Tribunal. foreign journalist, Rademacher von Una, in Milan, Italy. This affidavit at present is being translated. I gave this to the British Prosecutor, and he does not object. I ask to be allowed to submit this affidavit with the balance of my documents which are still outstanding.
THE PRESIDENT : Yes, certainly you may submit it. We shall then pass upon it as to its admissibility.
DR. KUBUSCHOK : Thank you, Mr. President.
DR. SEIDL (Counsel for defendants Frank and Hess) : On behalf of the defendant Frank, Mr. President, I ask permission to submit at this time the answers to the interrogatory from the witnesses which have not yet been submitted. interrogatory by the witness Dr. Ernst Boepple. Boepple was in the Government General. He was a State Secretary, and he has answered 41 questions. tory given by the witness Max Meidinger. Meidinger was chief of the Chancellory of the Government General. He has answered 43 questions. make out, has not been translated as yet, even though I handed these interrogatories in to be translated about ten days ago. However, an English translation is here, along with these interrogatories. witness Gassner, who answered 49 questions. Gassner was Press Chief in the Government General.
Dr. Stepp, last Oberlandesgericht President. In the main he deals with the efforts made by the Defendant Frank in the years 1933 and 1934, in his capacity as a German Minister of Justice for the dissolution of the concentration camp at Dachau.
I should also like to use this opportunity, Mr. President, to point out an error of translation which does not refer to a document of Frank but to a document which was submitted on behalf of the defendant Hess.
This was not applied to the personal guilt of Hess. However, it 2 July A LJG 23-1 is found in the document book, and the document concerned herewith is USA-696, 062-PS.
That is a directive of the 13th of March, 1940, the same directive which was mentioned last Saturday in the case of the defendant Bormann, on which occasion the President read figure 4 of this document, which was used. completely distorts the sense of the directive and, if I may say so, it can become very dangerous in its ramifications.
Under the figure 4 the words "unschaedlich gomacht" (made harmless) were translated "liquidated".
THE PRESIDENT: If there is an error in the translation, you had better apply to the General Secretary, and he will have the matter gone into by the Translation Division.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, Mr. President, but things do not seem to work that way. The translator obviously had the feeling himself that his translation was not reproducing the sense quite accurately, because in parentheses he added "unschaedlich gomacht". In my opinion this sentence would have to be translated as follows;
"Likewise, even the parachutists are immediately to be arrested or made harmless." The sense was obviously that the parachutists-
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): I daresay, Dr. Seidl, but we haven't got the document before us and we don't all of us understand the German language. Therefore, it had better be referred to the Translation Division. It is no good referring it to us.
DR. SEIDL: Then I shall put a written application to the General Secretary, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Y es. which Dr. Seidl has been dealing with? Have the prosecution had the opportunity of putting cross-interrogatories if they wanted to do so?
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: My Lord, I am told that we think so, with the possible exception of the last one. Perhaps I could look into it ever-night.
2 July A LJG 23-2
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
COLONEL PHILLIMORE : I will look into that point and let the Tribunal know.
My Lord, the prosecution have a few documents to put in. I have eight, and I think my friend Mr. Dodd has three. I could do it quickly, but it might be more convenient to do it tomorrow morning.
THE PRESIDENT: We will go into all these documents tomorrow morning. There will be some others on behalf of some of the other defendants. We will also hear the witnesses Kempka and Walkenhorst, I believe it is, whom Dr. Bergold called.
The Tribunal desires Dr. Bergold to be here tomorrow morning in order to be able to examine those witnesses.
(A recess was taken until 3 July 1946, at 1000 hours.)
THE PRESIDENT: Has Dr. Bergold asked any of the defendants' counsel to represent him ?
(No response)
Has the Marshal been able to get in touch with Dr. Bergold ?
THE MARSHAL: No, Sir.
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, Dr. Bergold had been advised yesterday that his presence would be required in the courtroom today. As far as I have heard -- and I have only heard this, however -- the General Secretary also got in touch with him regarding this matter. I am sorry I cannot tell you any more about that. As far as I know, he did not ask anyone to represent him in Court today.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Dr. Stahmer.
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, I shall look into this matter immediately, to see whether he has arrived or whether I can contact him.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, I think the best course would be for the Tribunal to consider the various applications with reference to interrogatories and documents, which I think you and other counsel have got that you wish to offer in evidence. The Tribunal will then examine these witnesses if Dr. Bergold is not here by that time, and they will of course expect him to be here if it is possible. Perhaps you will communicate with him, and the Marshal should also communicate with Dr. Bergold.
DR. STAHMER: Yes.
THE MARSHAL: Yes, Sir.
DR. JAHRREISS: Mr. President, I have learned that the son of Dr. Bergel returned yesterday, unexpectedly and suddenly, from a prisoner of war camp. Therefore, Dr. Bergold traveled to his home, a little bit outside of Nurnberg I asked his secretary to go to Dr. Bergold's home, and I assume he will be here within half an hour at the most.