Didn't you address such a letter to Himmler?
Until June, 1943, you were interested. What were the results of this letter? Weren't you interested in that? Police and I had to wait for what measures of security in the Ukraine the man who was responsible for it would take. When I did not receive any further information, I used this case for a complaint with the Fuehrer.
Q When did you tell it to Hitler? of May, 1943, and the file,which was very extensive, probably reached him several weeks before; that is, between the 2nd of April and the middle of May. That was about five or six weeks, I believe. That is a very fast complaint because, first, it had to be read by Lammers and Bormann; then it had to be reported to the Fuehrer. The Fuehrer had to make his decision and give his directives; and then I was called to the Fuehrer.
Q When was this complaint discussed for the last time?
Q Was it discussed in the presence of Koch? a report to Hitler, a report from the high Forestry Office. against the guerillas?
A Not quite exactly like that; but it said that that district had to be utilized for the necessary supply of lumber for the armed forces, and that these needed forests harbored many partisans and guerrilla bands; therefore, there was a great dange for the workers who would work in these districts, and it had con to shootings between them and partisans and guerrilla bands; and, since one could not watch over them, a transfer of the people from these forest districts into areas further to the south took place.
Koch added that than many of these people who had been transferred had said that they had received better land than they had had in these forest districts.
That was the explanation that Koch had given.
Q Yes, it's understandable. They were grateful that one December night they were evicted from their houses and taken sixty kilometers and back and hundreds of them were shot. However, I should like to ask you the following: In your letter to Himmler you also attached the memorandum from the Forestry Office, and in this memorandum from the Forestry Office it is stated -- I am going to read this point and you should really remember this terrible case when citizens were shot on account of hunting. without doubt that, first of all, in the interest of hunting, there was undertaken an evacuation of many villages situated in the forests of Zuman.
Is it correct? This is contained in the memorandum. with an assistant for forest economy in Berlin, who had added that, on the basis of his report and the chief of the people's administration in the Ukraine, himself.
Q. The last question in connection with this incident: Did you believe Koch when he stated that?
A. If I am asked like that, that is hard to answer, but there was -
Q. (Interposing) It is exactly on your conscience.
A. There was a description of conditions by the forestry people, and I could not protest against that, and I have to say that I may have made a mistake.
Q. I quite understand. I shall finish with just reminding you of one quotation from your speeches:
"For hundreds of people in Zuman who were shot by the police forces because their moods were Communist inclined, not one Ukrainian believed that. The Germans were also astonished at this statement, because if this had been done for the safety of the country then the other elements who were contaminated with Communism should have been shot also in other regions."
I have here to put to you the last question. Here in the Tribunal yesterday several times you declared that you wanted to resign your post. Moreover, you spoke about your letter to Hitler, dated the 12th of December, 1944, where you stated -- regarding this my colleague, Mr. Dodd, has already reminded you that at that date, December 1944, the Reich Minister of Eastern Territories didn't have any more territories, because the Germans were out of Russia by that time. and even becoming a member of the Secret Council, you asked Hitler that you would be granted this position of Reich Minister. Do you remember that?
A. I was never a member of the so-called Secret Cabinet. That is not correct. Secondly -
Q. (Interposing) Well,I shall correct myself. You dreamed of becoming a member of the Secret Cabinet.
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. And also dreamed of becoming Reich Minister.
A. Well, the question became acute for that task. There was a discussion about the form of that task. Dr. Lammers told me the Fuehrer intended either to appoint a Reich Inspector because he wanted to -
Q. Defendant Rosenberg, please. So that we won't linger too long on that question, I am going to submit to the Tribunal a document. This is your personal letter, the last document -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) In the first place, I don't know what the question is, and you are interrupting the witness before he has answered any question.
GENERAL RUDENKO: No, Mr. President. I have one aim here, because I should like to shorten my interrogation in accordance with the desire of the Tribunal. So I am going to submit the letter of Rosenberg of the 6th of February 1938, addressed to Hitler, where he requests this post from Hitler. We are submitting this document as Exhibit USSR 117. BY GENERAL RUDENKO:
Q. Defendant Rosenberg, I am going to read this document into the record. It is not very long.
"6th of February 1938. My Fuehrer, because I was unable -
THE PRESIDENT: The document is translated into German, isn't it? It is in German to start with. It isn't necessary to read it all. You can put it in like other documents.
GENERAL RUDENKO: Very well. BY GENERAL RUDENKO:
Q. In this letter you expressed your being hurt in connection with defendant Ribbentrop as Minister of Foreign Affairs. Is that correct?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. You thought that the post of the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Hitler Cabinet could have been filled by yourself, defendant Rosenberg; is that correct?
A. Yes, and I don't find it so extraordinary for me that I shouldn't have been able to express my wish to be used in the foreign service of the German Reich.
A. Very well. You in this letter speak of the existence of the Secret Cabinet; is that correct?
A. Well, may I read this letter, because --
Q. Very well, yes. Please read it through.
Q Everything that is contained in it, is it correct?
Q This is your own letter?
Q You asked to be appointed into this Secret Cabinet?
Q You asked for the position of Reich Minister?
A Yes. I reported that I had spoken to Party Member Goering about the question of the appointment, and since the Fuehrer had charged me with the ideological education and also the foreign political office of the Party still existed, that the impression could be made in the Party if I would be refused by the Fuehrer. Therefore, I asked the Fuehrer to receive me with respect to that matter, and I think it quite logical that I wanted to speak about on eventual inclusion of my person in the German Reich Cabinet. colleague of Hitler in carrying out all his plans and his ideas.
A No, that is not correct; that is absolutely wrong.
Q Very well, let's consider it as a reply to my question.
GENERAL RUDENKO: I have finished, Mr. President.
M. MONNERAY: Mr. President, I have only a few questions to ask the accused. BY M. MONNERAY: execution of the Jews of France gave the opportunity to your organization to seize furniture and valuables which belonged to these Jews? order to confiscate apartments and other properties of Jewish civilians in France. the profits of your confiscation and seizure operations; isn't that exact?
A No. The deportation of Jews hasnothing to do with that affair.
The suggestion for these measures was given, as I said yesterday, only after receiving the report that Jewish, people in question were no longer present in their houses and apartments, that they had left Paris and had not returned.
Q Once the Jews were deported they were absent, isn't that true? The rest of the Parisians and inhabitants of cities in the north of France returned in time, but, as I have been informed, the Jewish population did not return into these cities, especially not to Paris. Therefore, they were not deported, but they had fled. I believe the number of those who had fled was given as 5, 6, or 7 million. when they were in the course of the German occupation of France under the new deportation measure, the apartments and homes of people deported were not then seized by your organization?
A No, that I cannot express that way. It may very well be that the apartments of Jewish personalities who had been arrested may have been confiscated, but I could not give any express information about that. organization a greater chance of succeeding in seizures and confiscations; isn't that true?
A No, this is not according to facts. As can be seen from the report which the French Prosecution made here, the measures taken were those that apartments were confiscated by the police, sealed.. They waited two months to see whether or not the owner of that apartment would return, and only after the identity had been established and it had been established that this was not the case was the furniture transferred to Germany for those whose apartments had been damaged by bombs. That can be seen from the report which the French Prosecution has submitted. agree with me on that--there was very little chance of people deported returning after two months.
A Yes, yes, indeed. I was informed about cases. Even in the regrettable document, 001-PS, we can read that we had heard that a large number of Jewish personalities formerly arrested had been released again.
to Hitler on October 3, 1942, which has already been presented to the Tribunall Exhibit No. 1327. In that document you remind Hitler of your competence and your powers, and you say that it is a matter for you as Minister of the Reich for the Occupied Territories of the East to seize the homes of Jews who had taken to flight, who were absent, or who were called to leave; If you wish, I can submit to you this document in order to refresh your memory if necessary. referring to. It is a document of the 3rd of October 1942, which has already been produced. it is possible that a number of apartments of arrested people, other people who were absent, were included in that, but as I have said, in the other report there was more detailed information. But this document as such is according to facts. entrusted not only with the seizure of apartments which you had found vacant at the time of the arrival of the Germans in Paris, but also of homes and apartments of people who were called upon to leave in the following months, as you say. in territories occupied by the Germans in the west as well as in the East, Jews were called upon to leave. You know that it was in special trains, generally, which led them to concentration camps.
A No, I did not know about those trains. We dealt with definitely deserted apartments, and I was probably informed that eventually also the apartments of people arrested would be taken into consideration. More is not said in here, and I could not give you any further information. As to the reports which have been submitted here before the Tribunal, I have seen them here for the first time. I only know that in the end I was informed that before the conquest of Paris by Allied troops, all available furniture was turned over to the French Red Cross.
eyes, do you agree with me on the following points, that your organization had the right to seize valuables and homes which had become vacant after the arrival of the German troops in Paris? Do you agree with me on that point? ever of the deportations in special trains to special destinations. Do you know -- and I suppose you do know it since the document to which I am referring has already been produced before the Tribunal -- that in Paris every Tuesday since 1941 and until the end of the German occupation, Tuesday meetings brought together the representatives of the various German organizations in Paris, that is to say, the experts in Jewish affairs in the different German organizations, a representative of the German Military Command, a representative of the Administrative Division, a representative of the Police Division, and a representative of the Economic Service. At these meetings there was also present a representative of the German Embassy in Paris, and also a representative of your special staff.
I am referring to Document No. RF-1210, which is a report of Dannecker of February 22, 1942, and he was the chief of these responsibilities and the great expert on anti-Jewish terrorist action in Paris during the occupation; If you wish, I will submit that document to you. never received a report about these Tuesday conferences which took place regularly. However, my plenipotentiary for the furniture action had to keep in liaison with the police. That was a matter of course, since the confiscations of such articles could not be made by my office. That was a definite right of the police, and therefore one had to speak to the police about these things.
It was not reported to me that there were such regular Tuesday conferences, because I would have received such a report; I would have seen it. extremely useful for the interests of your organization. As a matter of fact, in those meetings there were discussed and finally decided various actions; collective actions, which had to be taken against the Jews, that is to say, arrests and deportations and police raids. Didn't it therefore seem completely logical and natural for your organization that it should have been regularly informed of these actions in order that it might be able to draw the economic consequences of such seizures of property. if the chief of police concerned sent such secret transports into the camps as was said here, then it does not follow that every Tuesday in conference with many other gentlemen he would report about that. Neither do I believe that this chief of police informed the representatives of the Foreign Office about these things in detail.
like to read again the passage of the report which says the following;
"The conference had as a result that complete alignment of Jewish policy could be"-
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing): The witness has said, has he not, that he doesn't know anything about these Tuesday meetings, he received no reports of them?
M.MONNERAY: Yes, Mr.President.
THE PRESIDENT: Then why are you asking about them?
M. MONNERAY: This document establishes the fact that the services in Paris worked actively in the terrorist policy of the police and benefitted by it.
THE PRESIDENT: You haven't been able to connect him with these reports, with the document. He has not signed the document. Nothing shows on the document that he received it, at least I suppose not, or you would have put it to him. He says he didn't know the document.
M.MONNERAY: Allow me, Mr.President, to ask, in that case, one question, which is to know whether he contests the reality of the indications concerning the representation of his Paris organization at this meeting. BY M. MONNERAY:
Q Do you contest his presence at this meeting? received any report. of a document which has already been produced, quoted, and discussed, that is, PS-001. In that document, the accused in the first paragraph proposes the transport of all seized furniture to the East, and in paragraph 2 he suggests to Hitler that there should be shot as hostages some French Jews instead of other Frenchmen. services of the accused could benefit by measures of execution and deportation, it seems that the real motive of this document is very clear It is necessary -- isn't that your opinion, Accused -- first to get rid of the people, in order to be able afterwards to seize their valuables?
M. MONNERAY: I have no more questions to ask, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you want to ask anything of the witness, Dr. Thoma?
DR. THOMA: Mr. President, may I quite briefly ask the defendant whether he wants me to ask him another question?
THE WITNESS: No.
DR.THOMA: Thank you. The defendant does not want any more questions. witness Riecke.
THE PRESIDENT: Will he be long or not?
DR. THOMA: I believe half an hour at most.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Well then, the defendant may retire.
HANS JOACHIM RIECKE, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q What is your name?
Q Will you repeat this oath after me? truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
Dr. Thoma, will you spell the name please?
DR. THOMA:R-i-e-c-k-e. BY DR. THOMA: in the Foreign Ministry? Nutrition and Agriculture.
Q What was the task of these offices? agriculture, which had been damaged by the war. The second task was the utilization of the surplus areas of the South for the armed forces and for nutrition purposes.
Q What offices had been established in these areas? forces: a special task force Goering for economy, Himmler for police, and Sauckel for manpower.
Q Who was agriculture under?
AAgriculture, just as was the entire economy, was under Goering. He gave directives immediately, or through State Secretaries Koerner and Backe. Government? That is, the quota of deliveries. In fact, during the first year, the delivery quota was lower than it had been during the Russian era. In the next year, as far as crops were concerned, it was lower; as far as livestock was concerned, higher.
Q Were the actual deliveries according to Goering's directives? on, into the Eastern Territories, and in what quantities? Program -- Ost Acker Program -- was established in Germany. The intention was -- and it was actually carried out -- to send large amounts of agricultural machinery to the East.
The reason for that was the large-scale destruction of agricultural machinery by the Russians.
What were the reasons for that? lation to cooperate voluntarily. First it was intended to maintain a collective economy. That proved to be impossible because, as has been mentioned, a large amount of machinery was no longer available, such as tractors. On the other hand, it was not possible, the way thepopulation wanted it, in part, to resort to individual farming because smaller machinery was also missing. Therefore, a compromise was made of cooperatives, where the Russian peasants got a share of the land but they had to contribute part of their work within the community.
Q What was the result? favorable. The extent of the planting increased. A good example of the consequences is that conditions in the so-called Kharkov Basin improved, because in the spring of 1942 the agriculture industry which had been changed into cooperatives had already achieved more than 70 percent of the spring planting, whereas the others only achieved about 30 percent. issued. What were the basic principles of that? the shares into the property of the individual Russian peasants. that handled in the Ukraine? owners. peasants?
A No; quite to the contrary. The socialization which the Russians had established during their occupation was waived, and the land was returned to thepeasants.
To say it in one sentence, the conditions existing before the Russian occupation were reverted to.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I beg to be excused, but I cannot understand, with the best of wishes, what all these questions, even in the remotest way, have to do with the affair of the defendant Rosenberg. It seems to me that further questions of the defense counsel, if they are along these same lines, should not be allowed.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, you ought not to show that what the witness is testifying about is connected in some way with the defendant Rosenberg?
DR. THOMA: With this question I wanted to,,first, refute the Soviet assertion that that country, after occupation, was returned to the Baltic Barons. I want to point out document USSR 4957, which I submitted yesterday. Secondly, I wantto prove that that area had been administered in an orderly way and in such a manner that the population cooperated voluntarily. Thirdly, I want to prove that during the entire German occupation not one Ukrainian or not one citizen of the Soviet Union had starved, because the agricultural program was successful.
I can only prove that by the statements of an expert. I have only a few more questions, and I think I will be through with that subject very shortly.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on, Dr. Thoma. BY DR. THOMA:
Q. Did the German Adm inistration in Latvia confiscate the land of the Latvian peasants?
A. I have answered that question already. On the contrary, socialization was revoked and the land was returned to the Latvian peasants. In other words, conditions were such as they had existed before the Russian occupation.
Q. Were former large, German estates reinstated?
A. No. On the contrary, Latvian peasants' property -- which, after 1919 was created at the expense of large German estates -- was left in their hands.
Q. What were the ideas behind the so-called reprivatization?
A. That reprivatization should give to the Latvian peasants the right to run their own property.
Q. Did that also concern Estonia and Lithuania?
A. The law, in a similar manner, concerned also Lithuania and Estonia.
Q. Do you know about a statement of Darre's that the local peasants should have their small properties transferred and proletarized?
A. I do not remember any such statement.
Q. Do you know about the Society for the Administration of the Eastern Area -- the Geschschaft fuer die Bewirtschaftung des Ostlandes?
A. There were two societies by that name, and I assume that the one you are referring to was the one founded in order to take care of the stateowned property in the East Baltic provinces. In all Russian territories of the so-called Reich Commissariat Eastland, the MTS also took care of these areas.
Q. What was the attitude of Rosenberg toward the various measures of recruitment of supply, such as foodstuffs, etc.?
A. Rosenberg could not do anything against the orders of the Fuehrer. He had always insisted that these measures be carried out without force against the population.
Q Who took care of the ostland workers in the Reich?
Q How were the east workers quartered in the Reich? Did you know anything about it?
Q Can you tell us something about Rosenberg's general attitude toward the eastern people?
cultural life. Rosenberg, as much as I know, always intervened for re
Q Did Rosenberg have to fight any limitations on that subject?
the field, especially in the Fuehrer's headquarters, in the persons of Bormann
Q Only one last question: Did you know about the concentration camps and about the treatment of the inmates in protective custody?
A The existence of concentration camps, of course, was known to me;
about the number of concentration camps and what happened in them, not. During treatments.
Later, persons who visited concentration camps turned in definitely positive reports.
In the last days of April of last year, near Berlin, I met inmates of concentration camps marching back.
Conditions were so on marching but to turn them over to the enemy.
That conference took place in the presence of Field Marshal Keitel.
But the answer was a very indefinite one.
That is all that I can say about this matter.
Q There is one more question that just came to my mind. In the occupied was it also taken into consideration to get foodstuffs for the German people?