BY MR: ELWYN JONES: ted International Law and committed no atrocities in the field. in a summary of the charges submitted to the United Nations War Crimes Commission by the National Commissions of the various countries which suffered at the hands of the Waffen SS. In addition to this summary, I can hand in certified true copies of the charges themselves which set out the facts of the incidents that are complained of. I submit that such charges and such summaries have probative value. It is true that the charges themselves have not you resulted in trials .and that the culprits named have not themselves been tried. The reasons for that are many-fold but I do submit that these summaries of charges have probative value and I invite the Court's ruling with regard to them.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you can tell us a little bit more in regard to the documents you are seeking to put in evidence?
MR. ELWYN JONES: The documents I am seeking to put in evidence are set up under the names of the various Waffen SS divisions, the unit involved, the date of the commission of the offense complained of, the place, the nature of the incident itself, and the source of the information. They are from the files of the United Nations War Crimes Commission, or of a SHAEF Court of Inquiry which put the matter up to the United Nations War Crimes Commission.
THE PRESIDENT: With reference to the evidence, it is only a reference. It does not contain the evidence or summary of the evidence.
MR. ELWYN JONES: It contains the summary of the evidence. The charges which I shall hand in to the Tribunal contain fully the details which I intend to use. There is no objection to your Lordship's looking at one of them.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Elwyn Jones, are you submitting the reports under Article 21 in any way ?
MR. ELWYN JONES: They ore official reports submitted by the National authorities to the United Nations war Crimes Commission and they embody evidence of witnesses and which are reduced to summary documents formed as charges. without prejudice to the question as to whether to admit the document or not, it might be helpful. If your Lordship please, Sir David Maxwell Fife is in a position to list the arrangement of the United Nations War Crimes Commission with regard to these charges and it might be helpful to indicate the machinery to the Tribunal.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Your Lordship, under Article 21 of the Charter, it says, the Tribunal shall take judicial notice of official Governmental documents and reports of the United Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in various Allied countries for the investigation of war crimes.
The procedure which was set up was that the United Nations War Crimes Commission under Lord Finley, and later under Lord Reiter, would gather the material, examine it, and send it back to the respective prosecuting nation.
The procedure was that the National Office sent a report to the United National war Crimes Commission who then considered it and sent it back to the authority in the various countries which dealt with the prosecution of the crimes. My Lordship, what is being put forward at the moment is a synopsis of the report sent by various countries to the United Nations war Crimes Commission, in the form of suggested charges that should be brought and a summary of the supporting evidence. These are available and authenticated, and the document which we should like to use, for the convenience of the Tribunal, is a synopsis of these charges, shaving the unit, the date, the place, and incident, and the source, including the United Nations War Crimes Commission files.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David Fyfe, as I understand what you have said, these documents, of which this is a summary, came forward to the United War Crimes Commission for some action by them for some form of approval, after which they would send them back to the country concerned and would be sent to a Tribunal for trying those individuals which the United war Crimes Commission approved the trial of. This is a summary which has not been approved by the United Nations War Crimes Commission.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: They may or may not. It is an early stage of a report of the United Nations War Crimes Commission. Each of the United Nations sent it for investigating and reporting on war crimes. That was an essential stop the National Office had first of all, to collect the evidence, put forward the charge, and put forward that report to the United Nations War Crimes Commission. It then came back with on approval or comment by the United Nations War Crimes Commission to the prosecuting authority of the various country. For the sake of clarification, if I can give my own case when I was in charge of this:
The British National Office was in charge of Sir Thomas Bidion, the Treasury Solicitor, who collected the reports from the various nations. He sent those forward to the United Nations War Crimes Commission. They made their comment. It came back to no and I decided whether there would be a prosecution or not. To my Lordship, I am putting this forward as on authenticated report of the United Nations office. It is the committee which was established to collect the evidence and to forward that evidence to the United Nations body. What we submit is the fact that each of the United Nations, by an authoritive committee, collected the evidence, summarized the evidence, and put it forward, which in its form, does ipso facto give it probative value.
THE PRESIDENT: You say that in Article 21 it says in the following words, documents of the committee set up in various Allied countries for investigation of war crimes ?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: That is so, yes.
********** THE PRESIDENT:
The Tribunal would like to look at the Document and see just exactly what is its make-up.
Do you have an original Document
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FIFE: My lord, this is one which is certified by Colonel Leningham, the secretary-general of the United Nations War Crimes Commission. War Crimes Commission, as many of them have.
THE PRESIDENT: We have looked at the Document. Now, before the Tribunal adjourns for the purpose of considering this matter, they would hear anything further you wish to say, Sir David.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I would call your attention to the number, of course, that had reached the stage of being approved by the United Nations War Crimes Commission. That would be necessary to my argument.
THE PRESIDENT: The summary of your asking is that you wish to make use of the summary which you have.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I want to make that comment.
THE PRESIDENT: The approval of the decision rests with the national authority?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: When I was the Attorney General, it rested with me. I understand the same procedure is in effect in other countries where it rests with the national authority.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Pelckmann.
DR. PELCKMANN: Whether the evidence which the prosecution will now present is available in the appropriate form and whether as a report from Allied Government, or from the United Nations War Crimes Commission, it can be used, or whether Article 21 can be applied to it, is something which I cannot judge at the moment. I am leaving that confidently in the hands of the Tribunal. What appears important to me is that according to Article 21 the High Tribunal can take cognizance of that Document, but only during the Prosecutions' presentation of evidence. We are now in themiddle of submitting evidence for the Defense and if the Prosecution are making these reports the subject of their Cross Examination, then there doesnot seem to be any objection to that, according to rules of procedure. But, if it is only a judicial notice on the part of the Tribunal without making these reports a part of the cross examination, I do not think it permissible for the SS witnesses who are being called to define their attitude to these Documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Isn't that really a matter for theTribunal to decide? It is a matter ofwhether the Documents should be put in now when the witness can comment on them. Whether it cones under Article 21 is a matter to be decided, that is a matter of law. Whether it should be put in now or after seems to be a matter entirely for the Tribunal.
DR. PELCKMANN: It is my impression that it is important, if the High Tribunal will accept these reports as evidence under Article 21, then it is my conviction that they can only accepted since the evidence for the prosecution has been completed, in order to put it before the witness. If the Document is put to the witness, I would consider it just, if, considering, the extraordinary tremendous size of the Documents, the Defense would be given sufficient opportunity to secure the facts for re-examination of the Document, That would take several days. If the Document should be accepted by the Tribunal without examining the witness, that is inadvisable, since the evidence for the Persecuting has been completed and this would be an inadmissable extension of the material for the Tribunal and this would be a limitation for the Defense.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider what you say. Dr. Pelckmann. The Tribunal will adjourn.
(A recess was taken) THE PRESIDENT:
The Tribunal does not in any way accept Dr. Pelckmann's submission that it is inconvenient or unfair to the defense that documents should be put in at this stage.
It considers that in all the circumstances of the case and having regard to the late stage at which the trial has arrived, and having regard to the nature of the document which is offered in evidence by the prosecution, that the Tribunal ought not to admit the document now. BY LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES: during the course of the war?
Q Just one moment, what was it called? What was its name?
A the division later was called "Das Reich" Division. It originally had the name VD Division and beginning 1942, 1944, it was the Second SS Panzer Corps. Beginning in 1944 I was retransferred ....
Q I don't want to leave the "Das Reich" Division for a moment. During what period were you serving with the "Das Reich" Division?
Q In what periods were you serving with the "Das Reich" Division? From what date? October 1941.
Q You did not return to serve with that division at all? Commanding General and Supreme Commander of the Army.
Q So that the "Das Reich" Division wasthe only division you served with in the field as a divisional commander, was it?
Q But the "Das Reich" was the only division which you commanded personally during the course of the war? commander.
"Das Reich"?
A They were changing. Later there were three other divisions which belonged to my Panzer Corps.
Q What were those divisions?
A First of all it was the First Division, the Leinstandarte Corps; second the "Das Reich" Division, and third the Totenkopf Division. Later, in 1944, the 9th and 10th Divisions belonged to it.
Q What were the names of these divisions?
A The names were Hohenstaufen and Goetz von Berlichingen; I beg your pardon, Frundsberg. command? end of January, until the beginning of August, was part of my command.
Q From January 1943 to August 1943? Kharkov, you were in command of the Corps, rather, in which the Leibstandard Division was, when it was fighting near Kharkov in the spring of 1943, weren't you? Kharkov, yes. was burned by the Second Regiment of the Leibstandarte Division?
Q And that that regiment also burned down Stanitschnoje? tion in the spring of 1943, near Kharkov? fighting at that time did not give enough time for tasks other than military tasks. they went through - are you saying that? That was one of the outstanding characteristics of your form of warfare on the Eastern Front, wasn't it?
A No, I deny that. The conception of "scorched earth" was not created by us. If villages went up in flames during the fighting that was sometimes unavoidable. I do not believe that the villages were set on fire intentionally because it was in the interest of the operations we were carrying out that these villages had to be retaken. was telling theofficers of your three SS Divisionsof the terrible reputation they had created, wasn't it? Those were typical instances of your fame on the Eastern Front, weren't they?
A No, Heinrich Himmler did not say anything about that. He mentioned terror, which I personally refused.
Q The "Das Reich" Division, When was that under your command?
A The "Das Reich" Division was under my command at the same time, say the end of January 1943 until August of the same year. Army Commander?
A. Afterwards only when I was commanding an Army did the Division come under my command again, at Normandy. of villages that the "Das Reich" Division was responsible for in Southern France in the month of June, 1944? during the fight against the DeGaulle army, there was fighting during which villages had been set on fire. At that time the Division was not yet under my command. I was still in the East. I only learned of these events here during my captivity. burned as punitive measures by units of your Waffen SS Divisions. Did you never hear reports of those incidents? one case in Southern France. burned the village of St. Germain de Belair. You know nothing of that?
A No, at the moment I don't know.
Q And Oradour sur Glane? The Panzer Grenadier Regiment 4 was responsible for that atrocity, wasn't it, when 793 men, women and children were murdered? You never heard of the atrocities performed by the "Das Reich" Division when it was a component part of your Corps? captivity, from the Indictments. Before that I had no knowledge of it. It was concerned with an individual company belonging to that Division, which was put into action through local office of the Feldcommandantur.
Q The Panzer Grenadier Regiment was that not under your command? got there the end of June. That is when I reached France from the East. terror purposes then, was it not -- the very point I have been putting to you for many minutes through this cross-examination? characteristic of divisions of the Waffen-SS.
Q The Death Head Division, when did you command that? January until August 1943. Division murdered about 45,000 Jewish men, women and children in Warsaw?
A In what year was that supposed to have happened? division belonged, the Totenkopf Division, with the great tradition of the murders in concentration camps? ing at Warsaw but at Kharkov. That was apparently a mistake regarding the men and the guards of the concentration camps. Division had shot 40 Russian prisoners of war near Kharkov in August 1943, for instance? Kharkov. It was by itself.
LT. COLONEL GRIFFITH JONES: Would that be a convenient time to adjourn? I have only a few more questions to put to this witness.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours) (The hearing reconvened at 1400 hours, August 6, 1946) BY MR. ELWYN JONES: for the massacre at Lidice in June 1942?
Q It's a very famous place, Lidice, L-I-D-I-C-E. on had nothing whatever to do with the division. I heard nothing about this matter.
Q Have you heard the name today for the first time?
Q Oh, the whole world knows of the massacre of Lidice. Are you saying seriously to the Court you have never heard of it? You have admitted that the Prinz Eugen Division was an SS division, have you not? you have said that units of the Waffen SS didn't set fire to villages or commit atrocities against the inhabitants. This is a statement from the Yugoslav Commission for Ascertaining War Crimes taken from a member of the SS, Holtzer Leander; and he declares:
"In August 1943 the 23rd Company set fire to a village on the railway line Jablabnica-Prozor by order of the battalion commander, Obersturmbannfuehrer Wagner, under the command of the Company Commander, Untersturmbannfuehrer Schuh. The inhabitants of the village were shot in the meantime.
"In August 1943, on the orders of the same persons, the 23rd Company set fire to a village on the railway line Niksic-Avtovac; and the inhabitants of the village were shot. The order for the shooting came from Jablanica and the villages were burnt down already in the morning. The shootings in Pancevo were carried out by the police agent Gross, former master-dyer, Brunn, from the SS Division "Prinz Eugen" from Pancevo, a former master-miller. He received a reward of 20,000 Dinars for the hangings at the cemetery."
hanging prisoners?
A It is striking that one company was named as the 23rd. We did not have Such a number. Furthermore, I cannot tell you anything about it since I did not command this company. It never was subordinate to me. In this division, Prinz Eugen, there were many so-called "Volksdeutsche" Germans; and even its first commander, Fritsch, was a "Volksdeutsche" for the Balkans. I believe that the war in the Balkans showed a different aspect on both sides than elsewhere. I suggest to you that the Waffen SS, the Allgemeine SS, the SD, and the police branches of the SS formed one great unit of the Nazi state. Do you agree with that?
A No. I stated again and again that this, a parent unit, did not exist; that we had no connection with the general SS nor with the SD; and we were completely under the command of the army itself. Temporarily small parts of the Waffen SS were under the disposal of the higher police; and SS leaders were assigned for tasks in the roar areas; and, this being the case, that applies to Warsaw as well as the cavalry brigades. under Himmler, did it not?
A Only in cases of jurisdiction. First of all, the judges who were the divisional commanders were the competent judicial authority; but sentences beyond a certain degree had to be reported to Himmler for his approval and confirmation. his own organization, this armed SS. This is when he was addressing the officers of the SS Leibstandarte of Adolf Hitler:
"This armed SS will live only if our entire SS is alive, if the entire corps is actually an order which lives according to these laws and realizes that one part cannot exist without the other. You are unimaginable without the general SS; and the latter is not imaginable without you. The police is not imaginable without the SS, nor are we imaginable without this executive branch of the state which is in our hands." That is an extract from 1918-PS.
Then he said again in 1943, "It must be so cone about that this SS organization with all its branches, the general SS, which is the common basis ofall of them, the Waffen SS, and the regular uniformed police, the Sipo, with the whole economic administration, schooling, ideological training, the whole question of kindred, is even under the Tenth Reichfuehrer SS one bloc, one body, one organization."
That is, from PS-1919.
Is not that a true picture of the SS?
A Yes, I'd say that it was so. He said it would have to be and it should become so for he knew that unity did not exist.
Q Then finally I want to put to you Hitler's ideas about the Waffen SS, the Document D-665, GB-280, which I referred to this morning.
THE PRESIDENT: You didn't give us the number for that document which you said took place in 1943.
MR. ELWYN JONES: That is the famous 1919-PS, US-170.
Q These are Hitler's ideas on the Waffen SS. He says that the greater German Reich in its final form would not include within its structures anything but national entities who are right from the beginning well disposed towards the Reich, "It is therefore necessary to maintain outside the corps of the Reich a state military police capable of representing and imposing the authority within the country in any situation." Then he goes on, "Having returned home in the ranks of the army, after having proved themselves in the field, the units of the Waffen SS who possessed the authority to execute their tasks as state police ..." That again is a picture of the unity of the SS by the leader of the Nazi state. Are you saying that he is wrong and that you were right in this matter? and which he intended to realize after the war.
COL. SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I would like to put only a very vew questions to this witness in supplement to the detailed cross examination which was made by my British colleague. Do you allow me to do so ? I am submitting to the Tribunal as USSR Exhibit 520.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you fresh matters to gointo, or fresh documents to put in ?
COL. SMIRNOV: I have a few fresh documents which I would like to submit, and in connection with that I have a few questions to put to the witness. Only three or four questions. ment of the Yugoslav State Commission, which deals especially with the actions of the SS Division "Prinz Eugen". My colleagues have already quoted a few documents referring to this, and this is summarized. BY COL. SMIRNOV:
Q. I would like the witness to apy attention to page 3, 4, 5, of the documentm which is a list of the villages destroyed during one action, and it is not the name of the villages, but it is the names of the heads of the families which were killed. I would like the witness to follow me while I read two paragraphs. "After the murder had been carried out, these SS groups went in the direction of the villages of Srijane, Bisko, Gernji Delac and Futisic in order to continue their mass murders and arsons,-
THE PRESIDENT: Can you tell us which page it is in the English ?
COL SMIRNOV: Page 6, My Lord, page 6. It is the fourth paragraph -- no, it is the third paragraph from the bottom. My Lord. Page 6 of the English text. May I continue ?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. BY COL SMIRNOV:
Q. After the termination of the massacre, these SS-troops proceeded in the direction of the villages Srijane, Bisko, Gernji, Delac and Putisic in order to continue their mass murders and arsons. All the cattle they found in the burnt down villages was taken with them.
The entire complex of these crimes, which were committed in March 1944 in the district of Split stands out distinctly from the usual SS criminal style by a particular fact. It is that climax of brutal cynicism, lock women and children in stables filled with hay and starw, deliver speeches to them and thereafter burn them alive." I ask you, witness, does not this contradict slightly your description of the SS ?
A. In both of these paragraphs I can only say that we are concerned with the Balkans. I do not know which units are meant here, and therefore cannot comment on this.
Q I will submit the following document to be submitted to you. It is a statement of your old acquaintance. I believe that you remember the name of August Schmidthuber. Do you remember that officer ?
A. Yes, I know that name,
Q. Maybe you will recall that he commanded a batallion, the Batallion "Das Reichs" in the period when you were the commander of the division.
A. He was in the division when I commanded the division, and that is why I remember him, but for a long period of time he served-in the Balkans.
Q. I would like to quote only on sentence from the statement of the Waffen SS Major General, and I will submit the original to the Tribunal Please listen to this paragraph, page 3 of the Russian text : "A war correspondent told me that the commander of this first battalion Kaaserer, after having locked up a large number of citizens in a church in Krivaya Reka, blow it up. I do not know how many casualties there were." Do you not consider this action as a very heavy crime against humanity ?
A. It appears that we are here concerned with reports of various sources. Direct witness did not make any statement here.
Q. No, this is the statement of the division commander. This is a statement of a general of the Waffen SS.
A. Yes, but a reporter makes a statement here, and he seems to have belonged to this battalion. But for a fact I cannot comment on this, for I was not there, and this division was never under my command.
Q. Perhaps you will tell me what you thing of the following document. I direct USSR 513 to be shown to the witness. Have I correctly understood you yesterday when you stated that the SS troops did not murder hostages ?
A. Yes, even I said that to my knowledge the divisions which were under my command did not even take hostages.
Q. I will read three sentences a proclamation of Sturmbannfuehrer Breimaier, who was in command of a battalion in the Prinz Eugen. "On the third of November, 1943, around 20 hours, a German soldier on the Veli street in Sinj was ambushed and killed. Because we did not succeed, despite all our efforts, in finding the culprit and because the population did not support us in this matter, 24 civilian persons will be shot and one hanged. The sentence will be executed on 5 November 1943 at 5:30 hours. Signed, Breimaier, SS-Sturmbannfuehrer and Battalion Commander." I do not read now the list of hostages that were shot. Isn't this a typical example of hostage shooting carried out by SS troops ?
A. I am hearing the name Breimaier for the very first time. I do now know whether previsouly he had instituted a court marshall and if things had taken the course as set down here, that would have been Justified.
Q. Very well. Perhaps I will succeed in convincing you by what is termed "ocular" evidence. Will you show the witness these two photographs. With the permission of the Tribunal I will read a very brief extract of the statement of the State Commission of Yugoslavia. The original will be submitted to the Tribunal. It is now being shown to the witness. Will you listen under what conditions these persons were beheaded. "On the 9th of June, 1944, and on the following days the SS-Troops from Trieste committed atrocities and crimes against the Slovene population in the Slovene coastal area, as we have already stated above." I will skip the next sentence and the second sentence, which are cumulative. "On that day Hitler's criminals captured two soldiers of the Jugoslav Liberation Army and the Slovene Partisan battalions. They brought them to Razori, where they mutilated their faces with bayonets, put out their eyes and then asked them if they could, see their colleague tito.
Thereupon they called the peasants together and beheaded to two victims before Sedej's house. They then placed the heads on a table. Later, after a battle, the photographs were removed from a fallen German, From this it can be seen that they confirm the above described incident, namely the crime of bloodthirsty German executioners in Razori." Don't you consider these acts as a typical example of crimes against humanity ?
A. If it had been perpetrated by men of the Waffen SS it would have been crimes, but that has not been proved here. It was one of thirty-five divisions in the Balkans, as against the large corps of the Waffen SS.
Q. Then I will show you another original German document which is USSR Exhibit 133, and which is a letter for information of the German high command to the battalion commander "Supersloda", Lieutenant Supreme Commander. I will only quote two sentences. You stated yesterday that SS troops did not kill prisoners. Did I correctly understand you ?
A. Yes.
Q. I will then ask you to listen to two sentences quoted from a German document. First, at the beginning of the page, "SS division is with its west blank near RIPAC". I skip one sentence, and I continue. "As a result of the successful engagement, 23 dead and 34 wounded and more than 100 enemy dead have been counted."
please pay attention to the following words: "47 captured soldiers have been shot, 363 provisionally apprehended," In a report exchanged by two commando units it is officially stated that the prisoners were shot. This was a very cruel method on the part of the SS troops ?
A. Yes, a first lieutenant reports on crimes which allegedly an SS unit is supposed to have perpetrated, without mentioning the unit to which they belonged.
Q. I believe that the 47 shot soldiers is a cruel thing. Have you any different opinion on that matter ?
A. I have no proof of the fact that it was one of the Waffen SS who did this
Q. Then please answer the following question. Do you have knowledge where the third SS tank corps was engaged in the territory of the USSR ?
A. The third tank corps ? The third ? Is that a corps, a panzer corps ? I believe that that was used in the southern sector.
Q. No, it was engaged in Estonia. Did you know General Steiner ?
A. Yes he was the commanding general.
Q. Did you know where the Totenkopf divisions were engaged ?
A. Yes, we discussed that today already.
Q. It was engaged at Miansk and other districts of the Movgoro region, isn't that right ?
A. I just heard the words "Miansk". Did I hear that correctly ?
Q. Yes. Thank you.
A. Yes, that is where the division was.
Q. That division was commanded by Major General Eicke, isn't that right ?
A. Eicke ? Eicke, yes indeed.
Q. Do you have knowledge where the Adolf Hitler division was engaged ?
A. At the same period of time as the division SS was it Miansk I believe it was used in the southern sector as well. Miansk -- I believe that was in the year 1942, or perhaps 1941.
Q. This division was commanded by Lieutenant General Simon, isn't that right ?
A. Simon was the successor to Eicke, yes.
Q. All right. Then when did Obergruppenfuehrer Dietrich command this division ? Was that later ?
A. No, he was there up until the summer of 1943.
Q. Do you know where the 134th SS high division was engaged ?
high/
A. We did not have numbers of that category.
Q. And the 97th Division, "Golden Lily" ?
A. Neither did that one exist. We had at the most 35 to 40 divisions.
Q Which was the Golden Lily? Was that in the SS Division?
A I am hearing that name for the first time, Golden Lily. No. No. That is an entirely new concept to me.
Q And Langemark, did you ever hear of that?
A There was a batallion "Langemark."
Q Do you know Sturmbannfuehrer Sehlung?
A No. No. I do not know him.
Q And do you know Lt. General Lueneberg?
Q No. Lueneberg. Division.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I will submit to the Tribunal a note. This notice has been compiled according to the Commission's documents which are already submitted to the Tribunal. It is signed by the secretary of the Commission. And it is confirmed also. This might aid the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you, Colonel Smirnov, the original of this document?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Yes.
MR. PRESIDENT: May I see it?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Yes.
MR. PRESIDENT: Colonel Smornov, have you put in yet the report of the Extraordinary State Commission?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President. A series of reports have been submitted. Thidnotice is a summary of material whichhas already been submitted. This is only to help the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, does this document consist of extracts from the Extraordinary State Commission Report?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Mr. President, It tells of the various units engaged in different regions of the USSR. This is not an extract. It refers to the SS attachments engaged in this territory, and in most cases the facts which were at the basis of those divisions. They are all mentioned in the report of the State Commission which we have all already submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, I think the Tribunal appreciates that you have done this for the convenience of the Tribunal, that this document has been prepared for the convenience of the Tribunal, but the Tribunal thinks they had better refer only the report of the Extraordinary Commission itself which has already been offer in evidence.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: I have no further questions to put to the witness. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, what unit were you commanding at the time war against Russia broke out ?
A. At the start of the campaign against Russia I was the commander of the Division Das Reich.
Q. Das Reich. Where was that division stationed at the outbreak of the war ?
A. It was used and stationed in the middle sector of the eastern front.
Q. The middle sector of the eastern front. Was it employed in the original attack upon the Soviet Union ?
A. The attack was west of the Beresina, south of *---*. However the division was not deployed there but brought up.
Q. You mean it wasn't deployed were upon the first day ?
A. No, it was brought along as a rear echelon unit.
Q. How long after the attack opened ?
A. Yes, several dvisions were one behind the other, for the motorized division could be brought along -
Q. I asked how long after the attack opened was your division deployed ?
A. Only two to three days after the outbreak of hostilities.
Q. And are you telling the Tribunal that at that time or about that time you never heard of the order to kill Commissars ?
A. I have already testified that this order was not received by us and that in the divisions we did not act according, to it. I know only that later on we received an order for a separation of the Commissars, and I have already stated that this troop had very little to do with this matter, for the Commissars were not recognized by the troop.