of the opinion that again this, in 1935, was of importance to the question.
THE PRESIDENT: Could you tell the Tribunal the name of the journalist?
DR. PELCKMANN: Yes; his name is "Doug" Brinkley, for Douglas Brinkley -- D-O-U-G-L-A-S B-R-I-N-K-L-E-Y.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you spell it again?
DR. PELCKMANN: Douglas -- D-O-U-G-L-A-S; Brinkley -- B-R-I-N-K-L-E-Y I had already said that I knew this man even less than the Judges. But you have to realize that after all this was published in Germany; and the average German is hardly concerned with respect to an American journalist whether he is only a lesser-known American journalist. And as far as the knowledge of the Germans in Germany and in the German SS, in particular, goes, this statement must be relevant, because during the taking of evidence, even before the commissions, I have shown, or shall show, that knowledge of conditions in concentration camps was confined to a very small circle who were occupied with these camps.
Finally, Documents 101 and 102. Here we are concerned with the question of the medical experiments on living human beings. First of all, I should like to say that I do not by any means represent the view that experiments undertaken in concentration camps conform with the principles of humanity. Without detailed evidence, I am not capable of passing judgment on this point; but I an establishing from scientific publications of recent date that the question of whether experiments leading to the death of human beings had to be carried cut on tons of thousands to save the lives of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of human beings, is, at least, contested in scientific circles, and, as I have shown by means of these documents, has certainly been affirmed by well-known American and British scientists. as I have been trying to prove in the commission hearings, were volunteering for such experiments. I an pointing out, however, that the proof that such experiments were carried out abroad is being furnished, in my opinion, by the wording of these statements; and the experiments were carried out on people who did not volunteer for these experiments.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you mind pausing there? I thought you said that they had volunteered for it.
DR. PELCKMANN: I said that these documents do not show clearly that experiments made abroad were made on volunteers, whereas I an alleging, I must state, on testimony given up to now, that experiments in concentration camps were carried out on volunteers.
THE PRESIDENT: I was only asking you what those documents that you arc speaking of, 101 and 102, said. Did you say that they show that the people who were experimented on volunteered for the experiments?
DR. PELCKMANN: No. I said, Mr. President, that one or the other of the documents states quite clearly what the position was. One document seems to indicate that the people did not volunteer. what appears of more importance to me is that -
MR. ELWYN JONES: If the Tribunal please, I do not think that the defending counsel's statement should go without challenge. It appears from the document 101, the report from the magazine, which is not a scientific magazine -- it is "Time" magazine, which I understand is not a work of science that the extract is silent on the question whether the persons who were used for these experiments were volunteers. of the experiments were volunteers.
DR. PELCKMANN: Quite right. The second document deals with voluntary experiments. The first document, however, leaves the question open. But I am concluding from circumstances which the documents show that it does not seem to be absolutely certain who were volunteers. An extract from a fairly recent publication, "Time", of the 24th of June, 1946, deals with a new medical fight against tuberculosis. American scientists have carried out experiments with tuberculosis innoculations on 3,000 Indians, half of whom had been innoculated, or vaccinated, with a drug. The others received a harmless vaccination. Among the vaccinated group, 40 tuberculosis cases developed; of the non-vaccinated group, 185 cases developed, and 38 died. Furthermore, experiments were carried out on people who did not suffer from tuberculosis.
The other document is a German translation of an American book, "An American Doctor's Odyssey"; and in that it is said that experiments were conducted on criminals with respect to the disease beriberi, and that often the sentence against the criminals was changed because of participation in this experiment. These experiments were made by giving some of the inmates polished rice and the second half of the inmates unpolished rice. Then the two groups were exchanged, and the sick ones became healthy and the healthy ones sick. The effect of these experiments and of the disease, in general, is very strong. The subjects very often die of a weak heart.
I quote from this book: "I remember the impression made upon me by the huge hospital for beriberi incurables at Singapore, where these poor people were crawling around on their hands --"
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): We do not need all the details of it.
DR. PELCKMANN: In other words, I am merely going to say that at least we are concerned here with the contested scientific opinion-
DR. ELWYN JONES: I am intervening again. But such a sinister implication is being given by the alleged purport of these extracts by defending counsel that I really must protest. The report that is given is of the symptoms of beriberi disease; it is not an account of the result of these experiments at all. The experiments took this form: That some Malayans were tested with their ordinaty diet of polished rice, which is said to bring on beriberi: other prisoners were tested with a diet of unpolished rice. And it was pro on that a diet of polished rice, which is their usual diet, brought on beriberi. There is no sinister import. There is no Dr. Rascher element about this.
DR. PELCKMANN: I should only first of all finally come to the objective angle. I an alleging, or the Defense is, that these experiments too were kept extraordinarily secret.
THE PRESIDENT: We have rot the essentials of the argument.
DR. PELCKMANN: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: We will now hear from the United States Prosecutor with reference to the General Staff and High Command, the SD, and the Gestapo.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, with reference to the SD and the Gestapo, we have cone to a complete agreement with Defense Counsel so there is no contest concerning the documents. They number some 150 pages for the Gestapo, and some 80 pages for the SD. been able to agree on a few documents. In the first document book No. 1, Document No. 5, we have objection to its translation certainly, because it has to do with a certain General Busse and concerns the political feelings of some of the generals towards National Socialism. It is simply his opinion and does not purport to be anything more. There are graphs and charts and so on attached to them and they are made to appear as if they are based on the opinions which General Busse gathered through conversations with other people. There is nothing to show that he is in a position to know of these things.
Document No. 8 we also object to because again it is an instrument based upon the opinion of General Winters. It is a collection of the opinions of other people. Insofar as we can tell he made some kind of a poll, a private poll of his associates, and these he collected into an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the nature of the actual document? Is it a publication?
MR. DODD: No, sir, it is not a publication. It is a statement, a sworn statement, of General Winters.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it sworn to?
MR. DODD: Yes, sir, it is.
THE PRESIDENT: Busse's and Winters' statements, they are both sworn to?
MR. DODD: Yes, sir, they are.
THE PRESIDENT: And what's the date of then, 1946?
MR. DODD: Yes, sir, very recent. Some time in June, 1946.
THE PRESIDENT: What's the date of that one?
MR. DODD: One of them is just within the last two months.
Document No. 9 is of the same character. Again it is a statement based on written opinions. The individual who makes the affidavit considers this and inquires of other people.
Document No, 11 is a newspaper article about General Marshall's report to the Secretary of war of the United States. That has already been introduced here by the Defense and our objection is somewhat technical but nevertheless necessary. We feel that a newspaper extract should not be used, particularly since the document is in evidence. It is Jodl Exhibit-56. We have not been able to make that clear to Defense Counsel so far.
Document No. 13 is again a political opinion or statement of General Winters based on another one of his polls which was conducted among his fellow prisoners concerning their attitude toward the so-called Commissar Order, and besides, this matter has been handled before the Commission established by the Tribunal. This matter was objected to before the Commission and the objection was sustained. In any event, we also object here. We object here because it is of no value whatsoever.
Document No. 20 is a letter written by a General Seidler.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, Mr. Dodd.
MR. DODD: The letter written by Dr. Seidler, of course, is not a sworn statement. This is document No. 20 and we object to it on that ground. Besides, we have very grave doubts about its value in any event.
Document Book 2 contains one document which we object to. That is Document No. 15. It is not an affidavit, but instead, it is an unsworn letter from General von Grevenitz to General von Kleist under the date of June 24, 1946, which, in our judgment, is of no value and we do not see that it would be helpful in any event to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, will you tell us with reference to these documents that you object to, how long they are?
MR. DODD: They average, from what I see of the German text, two to three pages and attached to some are drafts. Do you mean the whole, in total?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, take them in order, starting with No. 5.
MR. DODD: That has two pages. It is the statement with the draft attached to it.
THE PRESIDENT: What about Winters, No. 8?
MR. DODD: That's seven pages and two pages of drafts, which makes it altogether nine pages. The newspaper article about General Marshall's report, I don't know. So far, only one typewritten page. Document No. 13 is a ten page document. General Soldier's letter is one page, and Document No. 15 is only one page. It is also a letter.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Now, Dr. Laternser.
DR. LATERNSER: There remains yet certain documents about which there are arguments. First of all, Document No. 5. The table submitted with No. 5, on page 29 only refers to historical facts which are graphically represented in that table in order to show their extent and the effect they had amongst the military leaders to which they refer. The affidavit which is attached, the affidavit of General Busse, is not, as the Prosecution alleges, to state the facts which are historically known in any case, or to prove them, but it is merely to prove that table. It is not, therefore, a private opinion on the part of General Busse. The admissibility of that table can not, therefore, be objected to.
With reference to Document No. 9, I shall state my opinion collectively because the objections raised against it are similar. The list contained therein is meant to facilitate the judgment passed by this Tribunal against persons we are concerned with. We are not concerned with written passages, but we are concerned with lists and I am only too willing, should the document be approved, I am only too willing to furnish the numbers of that list. February, 1946. This document contains the names of all the persons who are supposed to be subjects of the indictment and it also contains the period during which they supplied them. This prosecution document, USA-778, does not state a source on which these statements are based but they are merely allocations on the part of the Prosecution, therefore.
I have never used this document, USA-778, in asking General Winters to compare these lists which I am submitting and contrary to the objection of the Prosecution, the Tribunal will be in a position to judge particularly well what the situation was since General Winters appeared personally before the Tribunal on behalf of Col. General Jodl. The actual lists contained names of dead persons and also names of persons who occupied temporary positions but not the names of the persons who occupied the final positions. According to the list you arrive at the number of 56 people so that the actual judgment would therefore have to refer to 56 people's lists. They are also listed in this document while commanders were removed because of differences of opinion.
occupied positions which the prosecution have referred to. That document is relevant because fo the alleged conspiracy. If, therefore, the Tribunal desires to have a good factual basis for judging the circle of persons indicted, then these lists would have to be accepted. The lists already accepted and submitted by the prosecution, namely Nos. 6, 7 and 8, can only refer to the same or similar sources as the list which I am submitting, but the lists of the defense are giving the origins and also the sources and can be checked. Had I used the same way as the Prosecution, then I would merely have submitted the lists without adding and affidavit to them, a certificate; and therefore I apply to have these documents admitted.
No 11 exists as exhibit Jodl No. 56 in the same form as has been accepted by the Tribunal, a fact which, incidentally, I referred to immediately when talking to the Prosecution, and my attempts to make the position clear were unsuccessful.
THE PRESIDENT: No. 11 we understood was a newspaper report with reference to General Marshal's report.
DR. LATERNSER: When that objection was brought up I immediately pointed out that the same document to which I will refer has already been submitted on behalf of the defendant Jodl. That is the Marshal report. In other words. I withdraw this document of mine.
THE PRESIDENT: You are withdrawing it? I see.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, as the same document is already in the possession of the Tribunal. I merely wanted to include it in my book for the sake of completeness. Then I merely want to remark, Mr. President, that attempts to make this clear to me were not necessary on the part of the Prosecution, because when arguments are so simple I usually understand them fairly quickly.
Document No. 13 again is based on USA 778 as far as the circle of indicted persons is concerned. This list, also compiled by General winter, is meant to prove the clear-out attitude on the part of the generals with reference to the commissar order, which I want to show clearly. As that list is based on the list submitted by the Prosecution and the affidavit which is added to it show the exact origin and authors sources, the document can be checked for its value. The objections on the part of the Prosecution may detract from its value as evidence, but the documentary character of the document cannot be destroyed, and there again, that list would have to be admitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Hasn't Document No.13. that is to say the subject of the attitude of the generals to the commissar order, already been dealt with before the Commission?
DR. LATERNSER: Yes. Mr. President, but examination of witnesses and submission of affidavits cannot give the same satisfactory picture which I am attempting by means of submitting this document. This document contains the names of the generals who belonged to that so-called group, and I have marked a paragraph which deals with the question of when the order was received and another paragraph which deals with the question of whether the order was carried out, and the facts which General Winter is stating in this list are explained by him in his affidavit which is attached to the list itself; and he goes on to quote the sources from which he had gained his knowledge, so that I could investigate the sources and by that increase the evidence value.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, you have called a certain number of witnesses before the Commission, have you not?
DR. LATERNSBR: Yes. I had eight witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: I suppose all of them, or almost all of them dealt with this subject. You put a certain number of affidavits and those affidavits have dealt with this subject. have they not?
DR. LATERNSER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: How many affidavits have you put in before the Commission?
DR. LATERNSER: I cannot, Mr. President, give you the exact number at the moment. There are only two affidavits -
MR. DODD: There were 72 of them. Mr. President. He put in 72 of those affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, isn't this really an attempt to extend and make more exhaustive the proof which you are submitting?
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, In connection with this commissar order, we are certainly concerned with a criminal order, and I was merely trying to show to the Tribunal with this list and to make it particularly clear how exemplar on this point the high Generals had conducted themselves; and I had summarized the outcome of that part of the evidence in this list which was compiled by General Winters so that the High Tribunal will be in a position to judge whether truth is contained in this list or not.
I am merely trying to say that the objections by the Prosecution are merely affecting the value of this document but not the document in its administration, which I apply for.
THE PRESIDENT: But if you put in 72 or 82 affidavits before the Commission, why shouldn't you put in this document before the Commision?
DR. LATERNSER: Well, but here we are not yet concerned with affidavits. Up to now only affidavits have been submitted whereas here. in Document no,13, we have the list, the most important thing, and the affidavit which is attached is merely an appendix to that list. It is the explanation to the list, which is necessary. The main point of this document, therefore, is the list and not then be room before the Commission for that.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Laternser, but it doesn't make it inadmissable before the Commission that it is an affidavit exhibiting a list. It could have been put in before the Commission, and if it had been put in before the Commission it would have been brought to our notice in the course of everthing that goes before the Commission. Also, it is pointed out to me of all documents, they could all have been put in before the Commission.
DR. LATERNSER: No, Mr. President, that point of view can't be right. Up to now we could merely submit affidavits to the Commission and not documents. The documents were to be included into the document books, and that is what we are negotiating for today. This no. 13 is a document itself, it is a list whereas the affidavit is purely a subsidiary document. This is merely meant to explain. Will you please make a decision?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we hear what you say and we will consider the matter.
DR. LATERNSER: Then I Wish to speak about Documents No. 15 and No. 20. Both are letters, the admissability of which is of importance to me particularly Frequently ordinary letters have been submitted in evidence during this trial. I will remind you in particular of the Reiner letter in the case of the defendant Dr. Seyss-Inquart. Then there is the letter of Colonel General Seitler, which is No. 20. This is of particularly great value to me because it shows that because of the efforts of a general who is indicted, the commissar order was rescinded. That is why this letter achives particular significance to me as defense counsel of the indicted group.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give me the dates of the letters?
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, The letter is dated 8th of July, 1916, and it was addressed to me. That, Mr. President, is all I have to say to the objections raised by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Mr. Dodd, That concludes the arguments that we need hear this morning, does it not?
MR DODD: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider your suggestions.
I call on Dr. Steinbauer for the defendant Seyss-Inquart.
DR. STEINBAUER: Gentlemen of the High Tribunal, on Friday I had got as far as Page 71, and with the permission of the Tribunal, I should like to continue on that page of my script. assume only a limited responsibility for the German Police, that is to say, in so far as he exerted it for the carrying out of his orders in civilian matters. When the Reich Commissioner called upon their help, the police customarily first got in touch with Himmler about the matter in most cases. But in all matters which fell within the competence of the police, the Reich Commissioner could neither issue orders to them nor intervene "de jure" in their activity, This must absolutely be kept in mind when judging the Jewish question, the concentration camps, and the deportations. recognized in the Dutch governmental report. The arrests and management of concentration and prisoner camps was the affair of the police. As explained in detail by the defendant when examined as witness, he went, as Wimmer and Schwebel also confirmed, to great trouble to put an end to abuses in the camps which became known to him. We shall hear only briefly refer to the treatment of the so-called Dutch-Indian reprisal hostages with whom the defendant concerned himself considerably and finally the fact that he succeeded in having the members of the clergy who had been imprisoned in the Reich enabled to return to the Netherlands. tremendous power I shall go over to one of the main points of the Indictment, the Jewish question.
ner Seyss-Inquart alone is fully *---* for the execution of the Nazi program for the persecution of the Jews in Holland. That in his Amsterdam speech before the members of the NSDAP, on 13 March 1941, he himself had declared :"For us the Jews are not Dutchmen; for National Socialism and for the National Socialist Reich the Jews are the enemy." In that speech SeyssInquart also explains why, as defender of the interests of the Reich, he believed he had to adopt that attitude against the Jews. He saw in them these whose influence on the German people world paralyze its will to resist and who would appear everywhere as the enemies of the German people. But from that very speech it can be established that Seyss-Inquart considered all measures against the Jews as safety measures only for the duration of the war. He speaks of his desire to create endurable measures during the period of transition and that after terminations the occupation it would be up to the Dutch people to decide what the fate of the Jews was to be. It was quite natural and obvious that during the most was, as a result of the treatment they experienced in Germany and later in the occupied territories, the Jews, without distinction as to nationality, belonged among the most bitter enemies of National Socialist Germany. That had to be taken into account by every official who had to look after the interestsof the Reich in occupied territories This also makes the speech referred to in the beginning understandable. There fore when Seyss-Inquart was commissioned by decree of the Fuehrer to preserve the interests of the Reich in Holland, he also had to adopt some kind of an attitude toward the Jewish question. It was his intention to remove the Jews from leading positions in the government and industry for the duration of the occupation, but otherwise to refrain from any further measures against them. Actually, he also instituted only such measures whereby the Jews were sent on leave or were retired. powers and for the entire sphere of German interests, had been transferred by Adolf Hitler to Himmler, that is, Heydrich, exclusively. Now, the Security Police not satisfied with the dilatory handling of the Jewish problem by the Reich Commissioner, invoked their plenary powers and established an office in Amsterdam whose interference was the cause of constant frictions with the deputy of the Reich Commissioner in Amsterdam.
The Security Police claimed they were unable to guarantee the safety of the Reich, the task entrusted to them, unless further measures were taken restricting the Jews in matters pertaining the economics and to their persnal liberties English and French people had been gathered in individual camps and had been driven over the obrder into the Reich, after their property had been confiscated as enemy property a treatment which Germans living abroad had likewise experienced in enemy countries, In particular, the Police pointed to the fact that very many Jews were actually involved, and often took leading parts, in all the more serious attempts at sabotage and other forms of resistance. Likewise, the Dutch Jews, whose ancestors had in part come from proud Spain, the greatest portion having come from Germany and the East as emigrants, had already been active in leading positions before the occupation in opposition to National Socialism in industry, but more especially in the press. When the enemy entered the country, they knew it would be a life-and-death battle and contrary to Shylock's words in the Merchant of Venice :"For enduring is the heritage of my tribe" they not only placed their property at the disposal of the resistance movement but also their lives. The Reich Commissioner also could not fail to pay heed to this fact. Because of the great number of persons involved a treatment of the Jews roughly similar to that of the English or the French or other enemy aliens by confinement in a camp was simply not possible. Measures affecting personal liberty of action were taken by the Higher SS and Police Leader as Himmler's direct subordinate, or by the Securit Police on direct order by Heydrich. At this point also belongs the introduction of the Jewish star, which the Dutch, by the way, did not consider a mark of defamation. At the same time that measures affecting the personal freedom of action were taken, the property of Jewish organizations and Jews was also taken under management. The Reich Commissioner appointed Dr. Boemker as his special deputy, with the task of supervising the measures taken by the Police As a matter of fact, he intervened a number of times and was able to prevent bad police measures.
The activity of the Reich Commissioner's office was largely concerned with economic measures, and the description by the Dutch Government Commissioner for repatriation, USA 195, gives a clear illustration of the entire Jewish problem in Holland.
The tables shows that the Reich Commissioner was able to delay measures against the Jews for almost a year and that really intensive measures did not begin until February 1941 with the formation of the Central office for Jewish Emigration which was ordered by Heydrich and under the supervision of SS Obersturmfuhrer (SS first lieutenant) de Funte. A comparison with measures taken against the Jews in Germany itself and in other occupied territories shows a pronounced uniformity, which likewise indicated that the measures in question were not taken by the Reich Commissioner but were measures taken uniformly by national offices, in other words, by the Police. The Reich Commissioner also saw to it that sequestration of Jewish property moved in orderly channels. When it finally came to the liquidation of property via orders from the Berlin Central Offices, liquidation proceeds were not confiscated but credited to the Jewish property custodian so that, finally, the Jewish administrative office had accumulated some 500 million guilders. Police through Heydrich the Reich Commissioner together with Higher SS and Police Leader tried to stabilize the Dutch Jewish question by assembling in 2 camps, the Jews affected by the restriction ordinances where they were to live under their own administration. One of the camps was Westerberg where they had a Jewish camp police of their own; with regard to the outside the car was under the supervision of the Dutch Police. When, in the Spring of 1945, it was occupied by the Canadians, the English Radio reported that they found Jews housed there in good condition, contrary to other camps which were found outside of Holland. The second confinement camp was to be Vugth. Himmler made a concentration camp out of it. The Jewish community of Amsterdam was under the direction of Ascher, a merchant dealing in precious stones. Funds were made available to the Jewish community especially for school purposes; negotiations were carried out with firms to provide work in the Jewish quarters. the Dutch Jews into assembly camps situated in Germany. Both invoked the plenary powers given them by the Fuehrer and pointed to the fact that sooner or later an invasion had to be expected. Holland seemed a suitable territory because the ports of Rotterdam and Amsterdam provided suitable bases for reinforcements and that from here was the shortest route that the British could take into the Ruhr region, the industrial centre of Germany.
To permit so man people extremely hostile to Germany, to remain in a territory which would see future operations in the battle against Britain was inconsistent with the safety of the Reich. The Police persisted in its stand and the Reich Commissioner was able to intervene only by taking steps to make the evacuation by the police more humane. The Reich Commissioner was able to bring about that thousands of Jews were exempted from evacuation and were so able to remain in Holland. The defendant had the internment camps inspected by his agencies and in particular corrected bad conditions through the intervention of the Christian church, insofar as this was within his power. The order for evacuation was not given by the defendant but by Himmler or Heydrich. The defendant did not even give his consent to the evacuation. As a result of steps taken by the defendant, a part of the, Jews was taken to Theresienstadt considered a place of encampment, ostensibly under the supervision of international agencies, such as the Red Cross and where the Jews were said to be well treated. As a result of exemption regulations brought about by the Reich Commissioner, a great many Jews could be exempted from evacuation. The abovementioned Dr. Boemker was charged with supervision of the transport of Jews in Holland and it became possible to correct abuses repeatedly through Higher SS and Police Leader. The greater part of the Jews was taken to Poland and it is probably one of the most terrible sentences, found in USA 195 one of the documents submitted by the prosecution, which reads : Total number of these deported 117,000. After they had left Holland every trace of them was lost; they merged into a mass of deportees coming from all occupied countries and no longer could be identified as an individual group." climax in the trial against this defendant. Did the defendant know of the destiny of these many unfortunate and innocent people; did he intentionally approve of it or does he become guilty because he did not prevent it ? The defendant has again and again, even when questioned as witness under oath, solemnly declared that he did not know anything about this, and that he was of the opinion that the Jews would actually be resettled in the East for the duration of the war.
When the defendant once had the opportunity in the year of 1942 or 1943, on the occasion of a report to talk to Adolf Hitler himself, he turned the discussion to the Jewish question. When the Reich Commissioner pointed, out that the evacuation of the Jews was causing serious unrests in the Netherlands, Adolf Hitler replied that he had to segregate the Jews as destructive element from the body of the German people, and that he wanted to resettle them in the East, when Himmler, the Chief of the SS and of the German Police, was questioned by the defendant in the beginning of 1944, he replied to the apprehensions of the Reich Commissioner with the words, that he should not be worried about his Jews, his Dutch Jews were his best workers. turned with the reports that the Jews were ding well and that they were satis fied. News from the deportees also, arrived in the Netherlands at regular intervals, although they decreased later on. Today, when the heavy curtain which was spread over the horror of these mass murders has been lifted we know the connections and the truth. Especially by the conscientious researches in these trials, it has been established that Hitler and Himmler have undertaken in a practically fiendish way to obscure and to cover the knowledge of their cirminal intentions concerning the final solution of the Jewish question. When I read the butch report about the Jewish question for the firs time, I myself was deeply moved. It is this document and the so-called Hossbach last will of Hitler from the year of 1937 which I have especially submitted to my client. Dr. Seyss-Inqaurt told me about the Hossbach document in which the evacuation of 1 million Austrians was demanded :"That he has never such an intention, I would never have participated." stated in a convincing way not to have known anything about the final solution and the happenings in the extermination camps. when I then expressed my opinion, why he did not quit, after he could not prevail with his views upon Himmler and his accomplices, especially concerning the Jewish question, he told me that, after all, he was a soldier and know that a soldier must not desert in war time. He had come to the conviction that he, besides the other tasks charged to him, also remained on his post for the reason that something better would hardly have followed for the Netherlands !
In my duty as defense counsel and jurist, I can add the following : One could not count on the extent of extermination which the prosecution have mentioned If it has taken place in the stated extent, these are actions of a special group of Himmler's hangmen which correspond to a desperate situation only. But in penal law, the principle applies that the causal chain is interrupted if an independant criminal act is interposed in the latter. This is the case here. Before I conclude the most difficult chapter of the entire accusation I should still like to examine the question, if the defense of the defendant that he actually could not have had any knowledge about the terrible crimes which happened in the extermination camps is, in fact credible.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this a good place to break off ?
(A recess was taken).
THE PRESIDENT: I will deal with these documents. The documents objected to in the case of the SS, 69, 85, 86, 96, 101 and 102, are all disallowed. 8 and 9 to be translated and put in the document book. No. 11 is withdrawn. Nos. 5, 13, 15 and 20 may be submitted to the Commissioners but they will not be translated for the document books. That is all.
Now, Dr. Steinbauer.
DR. STEINBAUER: To this point I should first like to present the testimony of a French doctor who himself was a prisoner in an extermination camp for a long time. This is Goutbien, M.D., from Montgeron (Seine-et-Oise) who writes in RF 107:
"It is difficult for a normal man to conceive an exact picture about a concentration camp which is designated in the German language by the two letters K.Z.
"It is difficult for various reasons: first of all, a man educated according to the principles of our civilization which is completely ruled by the elementary Christian humanitarian doctrine cannot believe the truth of the statements made by the victims of so many atrocities; the sadism, the exaggerated refinement of the Nazis have tried to disguise their crimes in a hypocritic way, so that a foreigner who would have inspected a concentration camp two or three years ago would have been impressed by the order and cleanliness in it.
"If a jurist had examined the execution easels, he would always have found at least sufficient reasons, if not valid ones, for their justification. Finally, if a doctor had searched for medical documents, he could have very easily concluded normal causes of death.
"That is how heavy the curtain was, which covered the concentration camps, and which the SS kept carefully and jealously down. The SS tried to give a legal appearance to their crimes; the thing in question here is a characteristic appearance of Hitlerian hypocracy." book, "The Concentration Camps, a Question of Conscience for the German People," he writes, Page 19..."and he believed to be able to prevent the self unmasking by an absolutely tight-ring of silence with which he surrounded his works. This ring was closed so tightly that a German, had to travel abroad in order to learn something concrete about the camps and to read there about the "Soldiers of the Peatbog" (Moorsoldaten). At home books like these did not exist, and one learned only very little from mouth to mouth. Nobody got out of the worst camps, and the perpetrators of the crimes themselves were liquidated from time to time, so that they could not tell anything. But the few who get out of the more moderate camps were so much intimidated that they gave only quite general, obscure hints-quite enough, in order to create in the entire people a general feeling of horror of these mysterious places.
"But even the little which went from mouth to mouth never came to the nowledge of higher officials of the Third Reich. Because if they went after these things, the police learned about it and the latter then took care of it that the bearers of such "atrocity propaganda" kept silent. There as time went on, one refrained from telling anything to such officials." had an active share in the liquidation of the Jews. On 25 June 1946 Dieter Wislicony, the special representative of Eichmann who was in charge of the liquidation of the Jews, was questioned as witness by the appointed judge of this Tribunal. He stated that commissions of the International Red Gross or foreign diplomats were guided to Theresienstadt, in order to simulate the normal status of the accommodation. The Jews who were brought to Auschwitz were forced to write postal cards before they were murdered; these postal cards were then mailed at long intervals, in order to create the impression that the persons were still alive. He invited different representatives of the press. To the explicit question, "Under whose jurisdiction was the Jewish question in the occupied countries, under the commander of the regular police, the Secutiry Police, or the Security Service?" he gave the answer: "According to my knowledge, the Jewish question in the other occupied countries was an affair of the Senior SS and Police officer, pursuant to a special order by Himmler." was for instance demanded by the Slovak government for every Jew as settlement contribution. I have reproached the defendant with this, and he told me that Himmler also demanded from him a settlement contribution of 400 Reichsmark for every Dutch Jew. He as Reich Commissioner refused this in consideration of the incomplete statements concerning the actual settlement of the Jews and with the reference that the final settlement would have to be left for the time of peace.