That is the only thing I can remember with refer once to watches. That he should have mentioned watches belonging to Jews who had been shot, I consider out of the question.
Q Very well. Have you been aware that in Nikolajev and sinpronopol there were representatives of the special command. ? brought out here in court by the witness Ohlendorf ? Do you think that Ohlendorf testified falsely here when relating this fact ?
A I know Ohlendorf's testimony and I remember that he said that there had been shooting near Sinpronopol during which soldiers had participated. But, he also said that he didn't know for certain what it was. He thought they were followers of the Army. In any event, I never heard anything whilst I was in the Crimea area about soldiers participating in the shooting of Jews.
Q I would like you to answer this question. Do you call Ohlendorf's testimony false or do you consider it correct ? To me, it is quite certain, so far as I am concerned, that units of my Army did not participate in the shooting of Jews. What he said about Army followers and what he means by that, I don't know. commanded. Also, don't you know that over 190,000 persons, the inhabitants of Kiev, were exterminated by the German Police, including over 100,000 people that were put to death in the suburbs of that area alone? Russian prosecution.
Q But you were aware of this type of mass extermination?
ing took place it did not belong in my area. ust, 1941 by the OKW, signed by Quartermaster Chief Wagner, forbidding the feeding of Soviet prisoners-of-war from the Army supplies? Did not this decree result in a mass death from hunger on the part of the Soviet prisoners-of-war ?
AAt present I cannot recall that order. In August 1941, I was the General Commander of an Armored Corps at the front, therefore I could not receive that order. What is more, I cannot imagine that the order in that form was given because we, in our area, did supply food to the prisoners and I do not believe that in our area any prisoners died of hunger. was a tremendous mortality rate from hunger and exhaustion among who prisoners of war of Soviet Russia. You admitted so yourself here yesterday, didn't you ?
A What I said was that it didn't happen in my area, but I read it in the document. After the large battle in the area of Army Group Center, hundreds of thousands of troops were taken, and many had died from starvation because they were half-starved when they emerged from the mountains. And secondly, no Army was in a position to take over the feeding of 1/2 million men quite suddenly. That cannot be carried by an Army because if would naturally result in difficulties. In the first place, the physical condition of the Russian soldiers when they arrived would certainly have led to death in large numbers. This is in reference to the prisoners coming from the valley battles in my area. give such detailed replies. Would you kindly be briefer ? Were you aware of the operation called "Krimhilda" ?
A The code name ''Krimhilda" for an operation is, at the moment, of no meaning to me. Perhaps you will be good enough to tell me what it is, and then perhaps I can recall what it was.
Q I will help you. This was an operation which was planned for the transportation of the German troops from Crimea to the Kuban and it was an original decree from Hitler which was sent to all headquarters and all rear quarters.
A That I did not understand. Do you mean the transfer of the Army from the Crimea to the Kuban or do you mean the retreat from the Crimea ? to the Crimea.
A The retreat, you mean. With that I had nothing to do because that was the task of the Kleist Army and they handled that and that was out of my sphere of influence.
Q And where was your army at the time? sector of the front. You will now be shown a document which might help you to recall what was going on at the time, and I would like to draw your attention to one particular point in the Hitler decree referring to the transfer of troops.
Q Do you remember that decree now? order; actually, it only refers to Army Group A, that is, the army group under Kleist. It is feasible that I did receive a copy but I cannot now today tell you about it; at any rate, I had nothing to do with the order.
Q This decree was sent to all headquarters. That was not the point. I would like you to find the second section of that decree which is entitled "Destructive Measures during the Evacuations;" and please look at point "G" of that section; quoting: "The enemy must take over completely useless and uninhabitable waste territory where mine detonations will occur afterwards." Have you road that place?
Q I must ask you now: In your opinion of a decree of that kind, would you say that it was not motivated by entirely military considerations?
A Yes, in my opinion, this was done purely for military reasons; namely because Hitler -- something which I know -- wanted to get as many of the forces in the Kuban free for other purposes simply because he wanted to use them in other places in the Eastern Front. For the defense of the Crimea he only wanted to leave a minimum of forces there and that was only feasible if a Russian attacking operation coming from the Kuban could, if possible, be suited for a lengthy period or at least made very difficult; thereupon, these orders for destruction were probably issued which in points A, B, C, D, E and F, do in fact only deal with objects which we of military importance; in other words roads, railroads, small railroads, and our production plants.
Q We have the decree before us, Mr. Witness, and you don't have to read it all out loud. I merely asked you to look at point G which talks not about railways and bridges and oil wells but talks generally about reducing the territory of the enemy to complete waste so it wouldn't be usable for the months to come. I am asking you as a soldier --since you call yourself one -- do you approve of a decree of that kind, do you, considering it was caused by entirely military considerations?
That is what I want you to answer.
A Yes, but the order was only given for military reasons; that, I an convinced of and I an equally convinced that letter "G" means that land should be made completely useless for the military conduct of the war. I do not believe, therefore, that the purpose here was to lay waste the land in order to exterminate the population but the military reason was that the land should be rendered useless for the conducting of military operations; that, I do believe.
Q It states here clearly enough what was wanted. I also want to ask you whether you were aware that in May 1944, in Sontgoffen there was a special conference?
THE PRESIDENT: Are you passing from that document?
GENERAL ALEXANDROV: I an going to another question, my Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: I asked you if you were passing from the document.
GENERAL ALEXANDROV: That is right.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you should put to him paragraph "3-C".
GENERAL ALEXANDROV: I will. BY GENERAL ALEXANDROV:
Q Please, witness, look at Section 3 of the decree, Point C. I shall read it into the record: "The ruthless conscription of the civilian population uninfluenced by any false softness for this task, with speedy commencement of work and incorporation into construction battalions, including female construction battalions, must be secured." Do you consider that this also was brought about by purely military considerations? This method of utilization of the civilian population, specifically the female population, do you consider that necessary? a doubt, as far as I am concerned. Whether or not it was nice from a human point of view, that is another question; but I am of the point of view hat the use of the civilian population, including the women, was something we had learned from the Soviet Armies because they did just that to the very largest possible degree.
The creation of anti-tank ditches many kilometers long wouldn't have been possible in so short a period anyway. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, is it your contention that it is in accordance with the laws of war to turn the females of a country into a construction battalion for the purposes of your army?
A. Whether that is in accordance with the laws of war of 1939, that is not at the moment quite clear to me; that in this war international law was further developed altogether and probably exceeded in many cases, that is an ascertained fact that the use of labor was one of the privileges of an occupying power; that I should like to say is the case even in the case of female labor. BY GENERAL ALEXANDROV:
Q. You have just stated here that the Red Army widely used the civilian population for constructing various decense constructions. I want to explain to you that the whole Soviet people, including the Soviet women of course, participated in all possible actions against the Germans; but give me an illustration, just one illustration where the Soviet Army utilized German women for purposes of the kind.
A. From wartime, I cannot give you an instance, because after all --
Q. For there weren't any such decrees of the Soviet Army but this decree by Hitler talks of utilizing Soviet women not German women -- Soviet women. All right, now we will go to another question. Have you been aware of the fact that in May 1944 there was a special conference on the part of the generals of the German army about National Socialistic education of the army units?
A. In May 1944 I was no longer in the service so, therefore, I could not have heard anything about this conference.
Q. And you have never heard about the conference?
A. Of that conference I didn't hear, no.
Q. I want to remind you about one fact in connection with that conference. You might have heard about it. At that conference the defendant Keitel, among others, stated that "officers who express any doubt in victory or who criticize the Fuehrer, I shall shoot".
THE PRESIDENT: The witness says he knows nothing about it. Is this a new document you have or not? Is it some new document?
GENERAL ALEXANDROV: No, no. We do have another document, a document with regard to which I find it necessary to ask the witness this question but we are not submitting this document right now because we only just now received it and we do not think it has been translated. I have in mind the affidavits of General Mueller of the German army, who informed us of these facts in his affidavits. If the Tribunal demands, at the end of this evening's session this document will be supplied at that time or at the latest tomorrow morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, all I mean is this: If you aren't putting in the document and the witness says he wasn't at the conference and never heard of the conference, I don't think you can put to him what was stated at the conference in order to get that in evidence.
GENERAL ALEXANDROV: I have understood you, Mr. President. In that case I will ask another question. BY GENERAL ALEXANDROV:
Q. Mr. Witness, are you aware that the command of the German navy, already in October 1939, suggested the invasion of Norway; have you been aware of that?
A. No. About that I knew nothing. Of the entire Norwegian affair, I learned as late as when it had become a fact and now, of course; that is to say, from the Indictment, I heard more detailed facts about that but I didn't hear anything earlier.
12 Aug M LJG 4-1 Cumoletti
Q What do you know about an operation coded plan '"Jolka"?
Q I will repeat it. "Jolka" - means "Christmas Tree" in English translation, or "Tannenbaum" in German.
A Oh, Christmas tree? That does not mean anything to me. In July 1940, after the truce and armistice, the Chief of the German General Staff visited von Leeb on the Vistula. General Halder told von Leeb to prepare a plan for the capture of Switzerland. Taking into consideration the fact that the Swiss would resist, the plan was given the code name "Jolka", and it was prepared and submitted to the OKA, the OKW for action. Do you remember that now? to the Channel Coast, and I heard nothing about the plan. the war against the Soviet Union was a " special war", and that you, as other German Generals, acted only as soldiers, and that the so-called "Ideaological" warfare was headed by Hitler and his colleagues. My American colleague reminded you yesterday about your own Decree in which you suggested the annihilation of the Soviet political system and other basic enterprises in other occupied territories. You also said you were aware of the decree of Field Marshal Reichenau about the conduct of the troops required in the East. In your opinion, was the issuance of such decrees conducted by considerations of military and socialistic duty, or other considerations? duty that they were issued. In connection with this, these were appearing in every newspaper. Whose other things certainly did not originate from us. We, with our soldiers, conducted the war in a military manner.
12 Aug M LJG 4-2 Cumoletti was conducted by the fact that such decrees were brought up not by German soldier tradition, but the Hitler kind.?
A That is not quite understood. May I have you give me the sense of the question?
Q. Did you not think that the issuance of such decrees, political decrees really, as the one issued by you, and by Reichenau, did you not think that such decrees were brought about as a result of the fact that the authors were not Generals brought up on the soldier tradition, but Generals brought up on Hitlerian tradition? own personal orders. That I personally have been only a soldier, that I think every one of my subordinates and my superiors will testify to. I have not been a political general, nor am I, shall we say, the National Socialist General which you mean. I have never been that. The order was caused due to the grave danger of the partisans, and to make it clear to our soldiers that they could not afford to be so careless, and it stated the fact that the fight on both sides was a fight of two ideologies. The order is such that it had two different parts. Part one, which deals with the necessity of resisting the attack, and which was to alert the soldiers. That is the order which contains the thoughts about the meaning of this fight. If it speak of the extermination of a system, we mean the political system, not human beings. It is exactly the same as the extermination of the Nationalistic and Socialistic, which is being carried out by the other parties now. The second part contains what must be done. In the second part, It is clearly stated that the soldier would have to avoid any brutal action, and steps are to be taken against any violation of the soldierly honor. This is evident in the fact that I have conducted the fight as a soldier, and not as politician. decree, I am sure the Tribunal will be able to judge the decree and you correctly. My last question, have you been aware of 12 Aug M LJG 4-3 Cumoletti the enterprises which the Supreme Command initiated for the purpose of conducting "biological warfare?
A Did you say biological? Biological warfare? At this moment I do not knew what the expression "biological warfare should mean, and I should beg you therefore to tell me. bacteria for warfare. That is what I mean, by "biological warfare
A No, I knew nothing about that. I have never heard of a war of bacteria or poisoning. plan for biological warfare and then you night recollect some things concerning the plan. I am submitting to the Tribunal, document USSR-510, which consists of the affidavit of Major General of the Medical Corps of the German Army, Walter Schreiber. I am reading it into the record.
"In connection with the trial of the major war criminals in Nurnberg, I, as professor of hygiene and bacteriology of the Military Medical Academy in Berlin and former Major-General, medical corps of the German Army, consider it my duty to our people, who have undergone such severe trials, and to the whole world to disclose one more page of Germany's preparation for war which has not been touched upon in Nurnberg. Together with the former political and military leadership of Germany a large part of the guilt is Bern by the German scientists and first of all by German doctors. Had that type of weapon which was being prepared been used, it would have meant putting to a shameful and evil use the great discoveries of Robert Koch.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, counsel for the defense, would like to say something.
DR. LATERNSER: I should like to raise an objection. By merely looking through the document, I discovered that the author of these lines is raising particularly serious accusations. I cannot discover in which direction those accusations are being raised, but I should like to state that the author of this document should appear as a witness so I can cross-examine him.
12 Aug M LJG 4-4 Cumoletti
THE PRESIDENT: Where is he?
GENERAL ALEXANDROV: I can find that out and I can report on it. The former Major General Walter Schreiber is now in the Soviet Union as a Prisoner of War. If the Tribunal thinks it necessary to have Walter Schreiber testify Lore as a witness in connection with the request of the defense, the prosecution will not object.
DR. LATERNSER: It is my opinion that for such a serious statement, he should be here.
THE PRESIDENT: General Alexandrov, could you inform the Tribunal how long it would take to get this witness, Walter Schreiber, brought here for the purpose of cross-examination ?
GENERAL ALEXANDROV: We shall take all measures to get the witness here in the minimum possible time, but I cannot guarantee or state the number of days, since the distance is rather great. I would like the tribunal to take into consideration the great distance, however, I do request, regardless of the fact whether the witness is brought here or not, the permission of the Tribunal to have this Document presented in the cross examination.
DR. LATERNSER: I beg to be allowed to define my attitude to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, you can make your objections if you wish to do so new and the Tribunal will consider the Document when they adjourn. We don't propose to allow the Document to be presented now at this moment. We will consider the matter when we adjourn.
DR. LATERNSER: I merely wish to say that I beg the Tribunal to decide that the Document not be read unless I can have Walter Schreiber as a witness here.
THE PRESIDENT: Your application is that the Document should not be admitted unless the witness is brought here for further examination ?
DR. LATERNSER: I should like to go even further, Mr. President, and apply that the reading of the Document should not be permitted unless the witness is brought here, so that the witness himself can say before the Tribunal what he certified to in the Document.
GENERAL ALEXANDROV: Permit me. Mr. President, to object to the statements of the defense. It seems to me that the affidavit of Walter Schreiber should have its place here and be used during the present cross-examination as it does not have any direct relationship as to whether Walter Schreiber will or will not appear here as a witness. His affidavit is certified by the Extraordinary State Commission, which is the Plenipotentiary of the Soviet Government. It seems to me that regardless of what the Tribunal may decide about calling Walter Schreiber here, that the Document which is submitted here as U.S.S.R. 510 should be accepted here for the purposes of my cross-examining this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: No, General Alexandrov, the Tribunal has said that they will not admit the Document here at this stage. We propose to adjourn at 11:30 and will then consider the application. I observe that the application was made in April of 1946.
GENERAL ALEXANDROV: The matter of bringing the witness here has not been considered up to now, but if the Tribunal commands me not to use the Document, I will not be able to ask the witness the question which arises out of the affidavit of Walter Schreiber.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you may ask him the question after the Tribunal had decided on the admissibility of the Document, if it is decided to admit the Document. You can ask him the question then, but he has already said he knows nothing of biological warfare.
GENERAL ALEXANDROV: He does not know the facts which appear in the affidavit of Dr. Schreiber. Until that is decided, I have no further questions, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further cross-examination ? BY DR. LATERNSER: Quarter Master General Wagner, about which the question was put to you, namely, that prisoners should not be fed from supplies belonging to the armed forces. I would like to ask if Colonel General Holder, in particular, on the occasion of his visit to the front at Orcha had in fact ordered that the food supplies of the troops should be shortened in order to make it possible to feed the prisoners of war ?
A. This fact is not known to me because the conference did not take place in my headquarters. I know in the case of my army in the winter of 1941 and 1942 in the Krimea I had to reduce the rations because of the shortage of railroad transportation and also because we did not wish to strip the country of all food reserves in the interests of the population.
As far as I can recollect, at that time, we had to reduce the rations and I expressedly prohibited that the last car, which the farmers had owned on his own property should be taken away from him, even though the army needed the wheat. I also remember that when the food situation became critical during that winter, we sent supplies down to them, although there was a shortage of transport space. At the same time hundreds, in fact thousands of forces, belonging to the army went wheatless because we did not have the whe* for them.
Q. The Russian Prosecution has submitted Document USSR 155. By whom is that ordered ?
A. I don't know which one you man.
Q. I refer to Document USSR 115
A. I am afraid I do not have the number.
THE PRESIDENT: We need not waste time on that now. BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q. I merely want to ask by when it is signed.
A. It is signed by Adolf Hitler.
Q. Yes, that is it. You have also been questioned with regard to Paragraph 2-g in this same document., "The enemy must take ever completely useless, uninhabitable, waste territory where mine detonations will occur for months hence." Do you know, Feld Marshall, if that was carried out in that way ?
A. That I cannot say, because I was not there, it was cut of my area
Q. We are here concerned with 1943, were explosives and mines available to the troops at that time ?
A. Yes, certainly we had mines and explosives, but not to any great extent as they were certainly very short at that time. In fact, we never had enough mines to lay field mine ahead of our positions,
Q. Then, the Russian Prosecutor went on to ask you with reference to paragraph 3-c, of that document, that is :"The ruthless conscription of the civilian population -uninfluenced by any false softness - for this task, their speedy commencement of work and incorporation into construction, battalions (including female constriction battalions) must be secured".
You did not answer the question of the Russian Prosecutor, namely whether you knew that someone had introduced similar measures with reference to German women ? Did you know anything of the ruthless exploitation of Russian labor ?
A. It was not known to me that that happened during the war, but women were used and they were even used to look for insets amongst potatoes. That happened in East Prussia in 1944. I cannot say from my own personal observation as I was not there, by certainly the civilian population had nothing much to laugh about.
Q. The American Prosecution has submitted to you Document 459-PS. Will you please have a look at Figure 6 ? Are we here concerned with an instruction or an order ?
A. That is a directive, but not an order.
Q. That the measures should be enforced, as this order says, there was need for the commanding officer to pass the order on to the security police. Do you know how it was passed, on these orders ?
A. No, I cannot remember any such order that might refer to that, or which might be issued on the strength of, it.
Q. Now, we come to Document 442. I have one question regarding that. Please look at Page two and look at 2-b. Do you know if the Reichsfuehrer SS was given special tasks in the operations zone and secondly, that he was acting independently and on his own authority ?
A. Yes, that is clearly defined in that order.
Q. Then, that would mean that the is special action group, the Einsatzgruppen technically speaking would not come under the supreme command of the army?
A. No, technically, they might come under the local commander and be used in the fight against the partisans, but quite expressedly they were used in the battle zone at the front, but insofar as the supreme command was concerned, they certainly did not come under him.
Q. The Document R-102 was submitted to you -- that is a secret Reichs matter, what does that mean ?
A. A secret Reichs matter, in my opinion, signifies an order or instructions, which only goes to the highest forces in the Reich or certain personn and it was not allowed to be generally known.
Q. Would this document have been sent to all departments of the army ?
A. No, it would have to be noted on the end and it is not.
Q. So you cannot find out if this document went to all departments of the army?
A. No, that cannot be and it quite certainly did not go to the Service Department of the army because such a report was never received.
Q. During your examination last Saturday, you said that you, because of your own convictions, and the other field commanders, would have taken steps against mass shootings had they been reported to you ?
A. Yes, naturally.
Q. Is it known to you that Field Marshall Van Kuechler, during the Polish campaign, when the shooting of Jews became known to him used every means at his disposal to prevent this ?
A. That I only learned in Nurnberg. I did not knew of the shootings at the time.
Q. Is it known to you that the German National Buergermeister of Marinka had to be sentenced by court martial because of his persecution of the Jews ?
A. I cannot recollect it. If it had happened in my area, it would have been known to me.
Q. Was it known to you that General von Knobelsdorf had ordered an SS leader to be arrested when he wanted to order shootings ?
A. That I learned afterwards, I did not hear of it during the war.
Q. Do you know of any other cases where the Supreme Commanders took such steps against particularly outstanding perpetrators of war-fare action?
A. I knew that Colonel General Blaskowitz, who succeeded Field Marshal von Rundstedt as supreme commander in the East, that is in occupied Poland, objected and that there was some sort of a riot about that, whereupon he was relieved.
Q. Now, I come to the last point, regarding the subordination of the Einsatzgruppen. The American Prosecution has referred to Affidavit 12 of Schellenberg, USA Exhibit 557. You don't consider that affidavit correct, I believe, because the practice did not correspond to the order, is that correct ?
with the Quartermaster General? like that in practice, and I cannot imagine either that that was the type of agreement reached, because according to our convictions, as I have said, there was either the question of tactical subordination or the matter of supplies, accommodations, and so forth and so on. There were those two types of subordination. In the case of a battle, then there was a third possibility regarding discipline, training, and so forth, and that simply did not take place in that manner.
Q. I shall now show you the affidavit which I propose to introduce in evidence presently, from Judge General Mantel, who, fortunately, had discussed just that point with General Wagner, Following that, I should like to ask you whether the contents of the affidavit would correspond with the practice.
He states:
"Shortly before the beginning of the Russian campaign, I arrived at the headquarters of the OKH and participated in a conference with Quartermaster General Wagner was having with the Supreme Quartermasters attached to the army in the East. Among other things, Einsatzgruppen were discussed on that occasion, and the Einsatz Commandos, the SD and the operational zone of the army, and it was clearly stated that instructions for the activities would be received exclusively from the Reichsfuehrer SS, and that the command authorities of the army from the point of view of discipline and service had no jurisdiction over them, but that equally speaking, they could be attached to these."
I now want to ask you: Did the practice show that Einsatz Groups and their subordinations corresponded to the contents of that affidavit?
A Yes. Quite definitely the practice confirms the contents of that affidavit, and even Ohlendorf's statement confirms that these orders referring to Einsatz Groups at Nikolajev were given to them only orally, directly, and that army command sources had not heard of them.
heard here in Nurnberg. At the time Himmler had been to Nikolajev where the Army Supreme Command was situated, at that time under the command of General von Schobert. At that time he avoided visiting the Army Supreme Command, although he was well acquainted with Herr von Schobert. That shows that intentionally he refrained from mentioning his plans.
DR. LATERNSER: Thank you so much.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
(A recess was taken).
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, the Tribunal would like to hear the submission of the Prosecution with reference to Dr. Sauter's application.
MR. DODD: I have the following statement to make to the Tribunal. I understand that the application asks for the striking of the Pohl affidavit and the permission that Funk again take the stand. I should like to oppose the application to strike the Pohl Affidavit. It seems to us that it is highly material in this case and if anything, although I doubt very much that even the necessity for recalling or calling Pohl for cross-examination is necessary but if anything is necessary that might be it. The defendant funk, it seems to us, has had a rather full opportunity when he was on the stand. I asked him when he started to do business with the SS, if the Tribunal will recall, and I think I went rather fully into all possible phases at that time of relationships between the defendant Funk and the SS and there was a denial on the part of the defendant Funk. Furthermore, he will have an opportunity, I assume, in the last statement, to say something, if the Tribunal saw fit to permit it, with respect to anything new that might have arisen out of the Pohl Affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but the Pohl Affidavit is entirely new, is it not
MR. DODD: Well Sir, it is new, but it really covers only one new matter and that is the matter of the textile business that we alleged went on betwhen the SS and the Reichsbank and the Defendant Funk. The matter of the Jewelry and all the other things I think were gone into.
THE PRESIDENT: I did not mean that it dealt with entirely new subject matter but it is the evidence of a new witness upon that subject matter.
MR. DODD: Yes, yes, it is.
THE PRESIDENT: And as to that, the defendant Funk has not had an opportunity to deny it upon oath, it may be that the Tribunal will think it right to grant him that opportunity. There are two quite distinct questions, first of all, as to whether Pohl's affidavit should be struck out, and secondly whether Funk should be called.
MR. DODD: Well I certainly do not feel that the Pohl Affidavit should be struck out because it seems to us to be material, highly material.