Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremburg, 14 November 1945-1 October 1946, Volume 06 (part 2 of 3)

Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremburg, 14 November 1945-1 October 1946, Volume 06 (part 2 of 3)

MME. VAILLANT-COUTURIER: I know it only as far as Himmler is concerned. Apart from Himmler I do not know.

M. DUBOST: Who were the guards in these camps?

MME. VAILLANT-COUTURIER: At the beginning there were the SS guards, exclusively.

M. DUBOST: Will you please speak more slowly so that the interpreters can follow you?

MME. VAILLANT-COUTURIER: At the beginning there were only SS men, but from the spring of 1944 the young SS men in many companies were replaced by older men of the Wehrmacht both at Auschwitz and also at Ravensbrück. We were guarded by soldiers of the Wehrmacht as from 1944.

M. DUBOST: You can therefore testify that on the order of the German General Staff the German Army was implicated in the atrocities which you have described?

MME. VAILLANT-COUTURIER: Obviously, since we were guarded by the Wehrmacht as well, and this could not have occurred without orders.

M. DUBOST: Your testimony is final and involves both the SS and the Army.

MME. VAILLANT-COUTURIER: Absolutely.

M. DUBOST: Will you tell us about the arrival at Ravensbrück in the winter of 1944, of Hungarian Jewesses who had been arrested en masse? You were in Ravensbrück—this is a fact about which you can testify?

MME. VAILLANT-COUTURIER: Yes, of course I was there. There was no longer any room left in the blocks, and the prisoners already slept four in a bed, so there was raised, in the middle of the camp, a large tent. Straw was spread in the tent, and the Hungarian women were brought to this tent. Their condition was frightful. There were a great many cases of frozen feet because they had been evacuated from Budapest and had walked a good part of the way in the snow. A great many of them had died en route. Those who arrived at Auschwitz were led to this tent and there an enormous number of them died. Every day a squad came to remove the corpses in the tent. One day, on returning to my block, which was next to this tent, during the cleaning up . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Madame, are you speaking of Ravensbrück or of Auschwitz?

MME. VAILLANT-COUTURIER: [In English.] Now I am speaking of Ravensbrück. [In French.] It was in the winter of 1944, about November or December, I believe, though I cannot say for certain which month it was. It is so difficult to give a precise date in the concentration camps since one day of torture is followed by another day of similar torment and the prevailing monotony makes it very hard to keep track of time.

One day therefore, as I was saying, I passed the tent while it was being cleaned, and I saw a pile of smoking manure in front of it. I suddenly realized that this manure was human excrement since the unfortunate women no longer had the strength to drag themselves to the lavatories. They were therefore rotting in this filth.

M. DUBOST: What were the conditions in the workshops where the jackets were manufactured?

MME. VAILLANT-COUTURIER: At the workshops where the uniforms were manufactured. . .

M. DUBOST: Was it the camp workshop?

MME. VAILLANT-COUTURIER: It was the camp workshop, known as “Schneiderei I.” Two hundred jackets or pairs of trousers were manufactured per day. There were two shifts; a day and a night shift, both working 12 hours. The night shift, when starting work at midnight, after the standard amount of work had been reached—but only then—received a thin slice of bread. Later on this practice was discontinued. Work was carried on at a furious pace; the internees could not even take time off to go the lavatories. Both day and night they were terribly beaten, both by the SS women and men, if a needle broke owing to the poor quality of the thread, if the machine stopped, or if these “ladies” and “gentlemen” did not like their looks. Towards the end of the night one could see that the workers were so exhausted, that every movement was an effort to them. Beads of sweat stood out on their foreheads. They could not see clearly. When the standard amount of work was not reached the foreman, Binder, rushed up and beat up, with all his might, one woman after another all along the line, with the result that the last in the row waited their turn petrified with terror. If one wished to go to the Revier one had to receive the authorization of the SS, who granted it very rarely; and even then, if the doctor did give a woman a permit authorizing her to stay away from work for a few days, the SS guards would often come round and fetch her out of bed in order to put her back at her machine. The atmosphere was frightful since, by reason of the “black-out,” one could not open the windows at night. Six hundred women therefore worked for 12 hours without any ventilation. All those who worked at the Schneiderei became like living skeletons after a few months. They began to cough, their eyesight failed, they developed a nervous twitching of the face for fear of beatings to come.

I knew well the conditions of this workshop since my little friend, Marie Rubiano, a little French girl who had just passed 3 years in the prison of Kottbus, was sent, on her arrival at Ravensbrück, to the Schneiderei; and every evening she would tell me about her martyrdom. One day, when she was quite exhausted, she obtained permission to go to the Revier; and as on that day the German Schwester (nursing sister), Erica, was less evil-tempered than usual, she was X-rayed. Both lungs were severely infected and she was sent to the horrible Block 10, the block of the consumptives. This block was particularly terrifying, since tubercular patients were not considered as “recuperable material”; they received no treatment; and because of shortage of staff, they were not even washed. We might even say that there were no medical supplies at all.

Little Marie was placed in the ward housing patients with bacillary infections, in other words, such patients as were considered incurable. She spent some weeks there and had no courage left to put up a fight for her life. I must say that the atmosphere of this room was particularly depressing. There were many patients—several to one bed in three-tier bunks—in an overheated atmosphere, lying between internees of various nationalities, so that they could not even speak to one another. Then, too, the silence in this antechamber of death was only broken by the yells of the German asocial personnel on duty and, from time to time, by the muffled sobs of a little French girl thinking of her mother and of her country which she would never see again.

And yet, Marie Rubiano did not die fast enough to please the SS. So one day Dr. Winkelmann, selection specialist at Ravensbrück, entered her name in the black-list and on 9 February 1945, together with 72 other consumptive women, 6 of whom were French, she was shoved on the truck for the gas chamber.

During this period, in all the Revieren, selections were made and all patients considered unfit for work were sent to the gas chamber. The Ravensbrück gas chamber was situated just behind the wall of the camp, next to the crematory. When the trucks came to fetch the patients we heard the sound of the motor across the camp, and the noise ceased right by the crematory whose chimney rose above the high wall of the camp.

At the time of the liberation I returned to these places. I visited the gas chamber which was a hermetically sealed building made of boards, and inside it one could still smell the disagreeable odor of gas. I know that at Auschwitz the gases were the same as those which were used against the lice, and the only traces they left were small, pale green crystals which were swept out when the windows were opened. I know these details, since the men employed in delousing the blocks were in contact with the personnel who gassed the victims and they told them that one and the same gas was used in both cases.

M. DUBOST: Was this the only way used to exterminate the internees in Ravensbrück?

MME. VAILLANT-COUTURIER: In Block 10 they also experimented with a white powder. One day the German Schwester, Martha, arrived in the block and distributed a powder to some 20 patients. The patients subsequently fell into a deep sleep. Four or five of them were seized with violent fits of vomiting and this saved their lives. During the night the snores gradually ceased and the patients died. This I know because I went every day to visit the French women in the block. Two of the nurses were French and Dr. Louise Le Porz, a native of Bordeaux who came back, can likewise testify to this fact.

M. DUBOST: Was this a frequent occurrence?

MME. VAILLANT-COUTURIER: During my stay this was the only case of its kind within the Revier but the system was also applied at the Jugendlager, so called because it was a former reform school for German juvenile delinquents.

Towards the beginning of 1945 Dr. Winkelmann, no longer satisfied with selections in the Revier, proceeded to make his selections in the blocks. All the prisoners had to answer roll call in their bare feet and expose their breasts and legs. All those who were sick, too old, too thin, or whose legs were swollen with oedema, were set aside and then sent to this Jugendlager, a quarter of an hour away from the camp at Ravensbrück. I visited it at the liberation.

In the blocks an order had been circulated to the effect that the old women and the patients who could no longer work should apply in writing for admission to the Jugendlager, where they would be far better off, where they would not have to work, and where there would be no roll call. We learned about this later through some of the people who worked at the Jugendlager—the chief of the camp was an Austrian woman, Betty Wenz, whom I knew from Auschwitz—and from a few of the survivors, one of whom is Irène Ottelard, a French woman living in Drancy, 17 Rue de la Liberté, who was repatriated at the same time as myself and whom I had nursed after the liberation. Through her we discovered the details about the Jugendlager.

M. DUBOST: Can you tell us, Madame, if you can answer this question? Were the SS doctors who made the selection acting on their own accord or were they merely obeying orders?

MME. VAILLANT-COUTURIER: They were acting on orders received, since one of them, Dr. Lukas, refused to participate in the selections and was withdrawn from the camp, and Dr. Winkelmann was sent from Berlin to replace him.

M. DUBOST: Did you personally witness these facts?

MME. VAILLANT-COUTURIER: It was he himself who told the Chief of the Block 10 and Dr. Louise Le Porz, when he left.

M. DUBOST: Could you give us some information about the conditions in which the men at the neighboring camp at Ravensbrück lived on the day after the liberation, when you were able to see them?

MME. VAILLANT-COUTURIER: I think it advisable to speak of the Jugendlager first since, chronologically speaking, it comes first.

M. DUBOST: If you wish it.

MME. VAILLANT-COUTURIER: At the Jugendlager the old women and the patients who had left our camp were placed in blocks which had no water and no conveniences; they lay on straw mattresses on the ground, so closely pressed together that one was quite unable to pass between them. At night one could not sleep because of the continuous coming and going, and the internees trod on each other when passing. The straw mattresses were rotten and teemed with lice; those who were able to stand remained for hours on end for roll call until they collapsed. In February their coats were taken away but they continued to stay out for roll call and mortality was considerably increased.

By way of nourishment they received only one thin slice of bread and half a quart of swede soup, and all the drink they got in 24 hours was half a quart of herbal tea. They had no water to drink, none to wash in, and none to wash their mess tins.

In the Jugendlager there was also a Revier for those who could no longer stand. Periodically, during the roll calls, the Aufseherin would choose some internees, who would be undressed and left in nothing but their chemises. Their coats were then returned to them. They were hoisted on to a truck and were driven off to the gas chamber. A few days later the coats were returned to the Kammer (the clothing warehouse), and the labels were marked “Mittwerda.” The internees working on the labels told us that the word “Mittwerda” did not exist and that it was a special term for the gases.

At the Revier white powder was periodically distributed, and the sick were dying as in Block 10, which I mentioned a short time ago. They made . . .

THE PRESIDENT: The details of the witness’ evidence as to Ravensbrück seem to be very much like, if not the same, as at Auschwitz. Would it not be possible now, after hearing this amount of detail, to deal with the matter more generally, unless there is some substantial difference between Ravensbrück and Auschwitz.

M. DUBOST: I think there is a difference which the witness has pointed out to us, namely, that in Auschwitz the prisoners were purely and simply exterminated. It was merely an extermination camp, whereas at Ravensbrück they were interned in order to work, and were weakened by work until they died of it.

THE PRESIDENT: If there are any other distinctions between the two, no doubt you will lead the witness, I mean ask the witness about those other distinctions.

M. DUBOST: I shall not fail to do so.

[To the witness.] Could you tell the Tribunal in what condition the men’s camp was found at the time of the liberation and how many survivors remained?

MME. VAILLANT-COUTURIER: When the Germans went away they left 2,000 sick women and a certain number of volunteers, myself included, to take care of them. They left us without water and without light. Fortunately the Russians arrived on the following day. We therefore were able to go to the men’s camp and there we found a perfectly indescribable sight. They had been for 5 days without water. There were 800 serious cases, and three doctors and seven nurses, who were unable to separate the dead from the sick. Thanks to the Red Army, we were able to take these sick persons over into clean blocks and to give them food and care; but unfortunately I can give the figures only for the French. There were 400 of them when we came to the camp and only 150 were able to return to France; for the others it was too late, in spite of all our care.

M. DUBOST: Were you present at any of the executions and do you know how they were carried out in the camp?

MME. VAILLANT-COUTURIER: I was not present at the executions. I only know that the last one took place on 22 April, 8 days before the arrival of the Red army. The prisoners were sent, as I said, to the Kommandantur; then their clothes were returned and their cards were removed from the files.

M. DUBOST: Was the situation in this camp of an exceptional nature or do you consider it was part of a system?

MME. VAILLANT-COUTURIER: It is difficult to convey an exact idea of the concentration camps to anybody, unless one has been in the camp oneself, since one can only quote examples of horror; but it is quite impossible to convey any impression of that deadly monotony. If asked what was the worst of all, it is impossible to answer, since everything was atrocious. It is atrocious to die of hunger, to die of thirst, to be ill, to see all one’s companions dying around one and being unable to help them. It is atrocious to think of one’s children, of one’s country which one will never see again, and there were times when we asked whether our life was not a living nightmare, so unreal did this life appear in all its horror.

For months, for years we had one wish only: The wish that some of us would escape alive, in order to tell the world what the Nazi convict prisons were like everywhere, at Auschwitz as at Ravensbrück. And the comrades from the other camps told the same tale; there was the systematic and implacable urge to use human beings as slaves and to kill them when they could work no more.

M. DUBOST: Have you anything further to relate?

MME. VAILLANT-COUTURIER: No.

M. DUBOST: I thank you. If the Tribunal wishes to question the witness, I have finished.

GEN. RUDENKO: I have no questions to ask.

DR. HANNS MARX (Acting for Dr. Babel, Counsel for the SS): Attorney Babel was prevented from coming this morning as he has to attend a conference with General Mitchell.

My Lords, I should like to take the liberty of asking the witness a few questions to elucidate the matter.

[Turning to the witness.] Madame Couturier, you declared that you were arrested by the French police?

MME. VAILLANT-COUTURIER: Yes.

DR. MARX: For what reason were you arrested?

MME. VAILLANT-COUTURIER: Resistance. I belonged to a resistance movement.

DR. MARX: Another question: Which position did you occupy? I mean what kind of post did you ever hold? Have you ever held a post?

MME. VAILLANT-COUTURIER: Where?

DR. MARX: For example as a teacher?

MME. VAILLANT-COUTURIER: Before the war? I don’t quite see what this question has to do with the matter. I was a journalist.

DR. MARX: Yes. The fact of the matter is that you, in your statement, showed great skill in style and expression; and I should like to know whether you held any position such, for example, as teacher or lecturer.

MME. VAILLANT-COUTURIER: No. I was a newspaper photographer.

DR. MARX: How do you explain that you yourself came through these experiences so well and are now in such a good state of health?

MME. VAILLANT-COUTURIER: First of all, I was liberated a year ago; and in a year one has time to recover. Secondly, I was 10 months in quarantine for typhus and I had the great luck not to die of exanthematic typhus, although I had it and was ill for 3½ months. Also, in the last months at Ravensbrück, as I knew German, I worked on the Revier roll call, which explains why I did not have to work quite so hard or to suffer from the inclemencies of the weather. On the other hand, out of 230 of us only 49 from my convoy returned alive; and we were only 52 at the end of 4 months. I had the great fortune to return.

DR. MARX: Yes. Does your statement contain what you yourself observed or is it concerned with information from other sources as well?

MME. VAILLANT-COUTURIER: Whenever such was the case I mentioned it in my declaration. I have never quoted anything which has not previously been verified at the sources and by several persons, but the major part of my evidence is based on personal experience.

DR. MARX: How can you explain your very precise statistical knowledge, for instance, that 700,000 Jews arrived from Hungary?

MME. VAILLANT-COUTURIER: I told you that I have worked in the offices; and where Auschwitz was concerned, I was a friend of the secretary (the Oberaufseherin), whose name and address I gave to the Tribunal.

DR. MARX: It has been stated that only 350,000 Jews came from Hungary, according to the testimony of the Chief of the Gestapo, Eichmann.

MME. VAILLANT-COUTURIER: I am not going to argue with the Gestapo. I have good reasons to know that what the Gestapo states is not always true.

DR. MARX: How were you treated personally? Were you treated well?

MME. VAILLANT-COUTURIER: Like the others.

DR. MARX: Like the others? You said before that the German people must have known of the happenings in Auschwitz. What are your grounds for this statement?

MME. VAILLANT-COUTURIER: I have already told you: To begin with there was the fact that, when we left, the Lorraine soldiers of the Wehrmacht who were taking us to Auschwitz said to us, “If you knew where you were going, you would not be in such a hurry to get there.” Then there was the fact that the German women who came out of quarantine to go to work in German factories knew of these events, and they all said that they would speak about them outside.

Further, the fact that in all the factories where the Häftlinge (the internees) worked they were in contact with the German civilians, as also were the Aufseherinnen, who were in touch with their friends and families and often told them what they had seen.

DR. MARX: One more question. Up to 1942 you were able to observe the behavior of the German soldiers in Paris. Did not these German soldiers behave well throughout and did they not pay for what they took?

MME. VAILLANT-COUTURIER: I have not the least idea whether they paid or not for what they requisitioned. As for their good behavior, too many of my friends were shot or massacred for me not to differ with you.

DR. MARX: I have no further question to put to this witness.

[Dr. Marx started to leave the lectern and then returned.]

THE PRESIDENT: If you have no further question there is nothing more to be said. [Laughter.] There is too much laughter in the court; I have already spoken about that.

[To Dr. Marx.] I thought you had said you had no further question.

DR. MARX: Yes. Please excuse me. I only want to make a proviso for Attorney Babel that he might cross-examine the witness himself at a later date, if that is possible.

THE PRESIDENT: Babel, did you say?

DR. MARX: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon; yes, certainly. When will Dr. Babel be back in his place?

DR. MARX: I presume that he will be back in the afternoon. He is in the building. However, he must first read the minutes.

THE PRESIDENT: We will consider the question. If Dr. Babel is here this afternoon we will consider the matter, if Dr. Babel makes a further application.

Does any other of the defendants’ counsel wish to ask any questions of the witness?

[There was no response.]

M. Dubost, have you any questions you wish to ask on reexamination?

M. DUBOST: I have no further questions to ask.

THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness may retire.

[The witness left the stand.]

M. DUBOST: If the Tribunal will kindly allow it, we shall now hear another witness, M. Veith.

THE PRESIDENT: Are you calling this witness on the treatment of prisoners in concentration camps?

M. DUBOST: Yes, Mr. President, and also because this witness can give us particulars of the ill-treatment to which certain prisoners of war had been exposed in the camps of internees. This is no longer a question of concentration camps and of ill-treatment inflicted upon civilians in those camps, but of soldiers who had been brought to the concentration camps and subjected to the same cruelty as the civilian prisoners.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you won’t lose sight of the fact that there has been practically no cross-examination of the witnesses you have already called about the treatment in concentration camps? The Tribunal, I think, feels that you could deal with the treatment in concentration camps somewhat more generally than the last witness. Do you hear what I say?

M. DUBOST: Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that you could deal with the question of treatment in concentration camps rather more generally now, since we have heard the details from the witnesses whom you have already called.

[The witness, Veith, took the stand.]

M. DUBOST: Is the Tribunal willing to hear this witness?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

[To the witness.] What is your name?

M. JEAN-FRÉDÉRIC VEITH (Witness): Jean-Frédéric Veith.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath: I swear that I will speak without hate or fear, that I will tell the truth, all the truth, nothing but the truth.

[The witness repeated the oath in French.]

THE PRESIDENT: Raise your right hand and say, “I swear.”

VEITH: I swear it.

THE PRESIDENT: Would you like to sit down and spell your name and surname?

M. DUBOST: Will you please spell your name and surname?

VEITH: J-e-a-n F-r-é-d-é-r-i-c V-e-i-t-h. I was born on 28 April 1903 in Moscow.

M. DUBOST: You are of French nationality?

VEITH: I am of French nationality, born of French parents.

M. DUBOST: In which camp were you interned?

VEITH: At Mauthausen; from 22 April 1943 until 22 April 1945.

M. DUBOST: You knew about the work carried out in the factories supplying material to the Luftwaffe. Who controlled these factories?

VEITH: I was in the Arbeitseinsatz at Mauthausen from June 1943, and I was therefore well acquainted with all questions dealing with the work.

M. DUBOST: Who controlled the factories working for the Luftwaffe?

VEITH: There were outside camps at Mauthausen where workers were employed by Heinkel, Messerschmidt, Alfa-Vienne, and the Saurer-Werke, and there was, moreover, the construction work on the Leibl Pass tunnel by the Alpine Montan.

M. DUBOST: Who controlled this work, supervisors or engineers?

VEITH: There was only SS supervision. The work itself was controlled by the engineers and the firms themselves.

M. DUBOST: Did these engineers belong to the Luftwaffe?

VEITH: On certain days I saw Luftwaffe officers who came to visit the Messerschmidt workshops in the quarry.

M. DUBOST: Were they able to see for themselves the conditions under which the prisoners lived?

VEITH: Yes, certainly.

M. DUBOST: Did you see any high-ranking Nazi officials visiting the camp?

VEITH: I saw a great many high-ranking officials, among them Himmler, Kaltenbrunner, Pohl, Maurer, the Chief of the Labor Office, Amt D II, of the Reich, and many other visitors whose names I do not know.

M. DUBOST: Who told you that Kaltenbrunner had come?

VEITH: Well, our offices faced the parade ground overlooking the Kommandantur; we therefore saw the high-ranking officials arriving, and the SS men themselves would tell us, “There goes so and so.”

M. DUBOST: Could the civilian population know, and did it know of the plight of the internees?

VEITH: Yes, the population could know, since at Mauthausen there was a road near the quarry and those who passed by that road could see all that was happening. Moreover, the internees worked in the factories. They were separated from the other workers, but they had certain contacts with them and it was quite easy for the other workers to realize their plight.

M. DUBOST: Can you tell us what you know about a journey, to an unknown castle, of a bus carrying prisoners who were never seen again?

VEITH: At one time a method for the elimination of sick persons by injections was adopted at Mauthausen. It was particularly used by Dr. Krebsbach, nicknamed “Dr. Spritzbach” by the prisoners since it was he who had inaugurated the system of injections. There came a time when the injections were discontinued, and then persons who were too sick or too weak were sent to a castle which, we learned later, was called Hartheim, but was officially known as a Genesungslager (convalescent camp). Of all of those who went there, none ever returned. We received the death certificates directly from the political section of the camp; these certificates were secret. Everybody who went to Hartheim died. The number of dead amounted to about 5,000.

M. DUBOST: Did you see prisoners of war arrive at Mauthausen Camp?

VEITH: Certainly I saw prisoners of war. Their arrival at Mauthausen Camp took place, first of all, in front of the political section. Since I was working at the Hollerith I could watch the arrivals, for the offices faced the parade ground in front of the political section where the convoys arrived. The convoys were immediately sorted out. One part was sent to the camp for registration, and very often some of the uniformed prisoners were set aside; these had already been subjected to special violence in the political section and were handed straight over to the prison guards. They were then sent to the prisons and never heard of again. They were not registered in the camp. The only registration was made in the political section by Müller who was in charge of these prisoners.

M. DUBOST: They were prisoners of war?

VEITH: They were prisoners of war. They were very often in uniform.

M. DUBOST: Of what nationality?

VEITH: Mostly Russians and Poles.

M. DUBOST: They were brought to your camp to be killed there?

VEITH: They were brought to our camp for “Action K.”

M. DUBOST: What do you know about Action K and how do you know it?

VEITH: My knowledge of Action K is due to the fact that I was head of the Hollerith service in Mauthausen, and consequently received all the transfer forms from the various camps. And when prisoners were erroneously transferred to us as ordinary prisoners, we would put it on the transfer form which we had to send to the central office in Berlin, or rather, we would not put any number at all, as we were unable to give one. The “Politische” gave us no indications at all and even destroyed the list of names if, by chance, it ever reached us.

In conversations with my comrades of the “Politische” I discovered that this Action K was originally applied to prisoners of war who had been captured while attempting to escape. Later this action was extended further still, but always to soldiers and especially to officers who had succeeded in escaping but who had been recaptured in countries under German control.

Moreover, any person engaged in activities which might be interpreted as not corresponding to the wishes of the fascist chiefs could also be subjected to Action K. These prisoners arrived at Mauthausen and disappeared, that is, they were taken to the prison where one part would be executed on the spot and another sent to the annex of the prison, which by this time had become too small to hold them, to the famous Block 20 of Mauthausen.

M. DUBOST: You definitely state that these were prisoners of war?

VEITH: Yes, they were prisoners of war, most of them.

M. DUBOST: Do you know of an execution of officers, prisoners of war, who had been brought to the camp at Mauthausen?

VEITH: I cannot give you any names, but there were some.

M. DUBOST: Did you witness the execution of Allied officers who were murdered within 48 hours of their arrival in camp?

VEITH: I saw the arrival of the convoy of 6 September. I believe that is the one you are thinking of; I saw the arrival of this convoy and in the very same afternoon these 47 went down to the quarry dressed in nothing but their shirts and drawers. Shortly after we heard the sound of machine gun fire. I then left the office and passed at the back, pretending I was carrying documents to another office, and with my own eyes I saw these unfortunate people shot down; 19 were executed on the very same afternoon and the remainder on the following morning. Later on, all the death certificates were marked, “Killed while attempting to escape.”

M. DUBOST: Do you have the names?

VEITH: Yes, I have a copy of the names of these prisoners.

[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]

Afternoon Session

MARSHAL: If the Court please, it is desired to announce that the Defendant Kaltenbrunner will be absent from this afternoon’s session on account of illness.

THE PRESIDENT: You may go on, M. Dubost.

M. DUBOST: We are going to complete the hearing of the witness Veith, to whom, however, I have only one more question to put.

THE PRESIDENT: Have him brought in.

[The witness, Veith, took the stand.]

M. DUBOST: You continue to testify under the oath that you already made this morning.

Will you give some additional information concerning the execution of the 47 Allied officers whom you saw shot in 48 hours at Camp Mauthausen where they had been brought?

VEITH: Those officers, those parachutists, were shot in accordance with the usual systems used whenever prisoners had to be done away with. That is to say, they were forced to work to excess, to carry heavy stones. Then they were beaten until they took heavier ones; and so on and so forth until, finally driven to extremity, they turned towards the barbed wire. If they did not do it of their own accord, they were pushed there; and they were beaten until they did so; and the moment they approached it and were perhaps about one meter away from it, they were mown down by machine guns fired by the SS guards in the watchtowers. This was the usual system for the “killing for attempted escape” as they afterwards called it.

Those 47 men were killed on the afternoon of the 6th and morning of the 7th of September.

M. DUBOST: How did you know their names?

VEITH: Their names came to me with the official list, because they had all been entered in the camp registers and I had to report to Berlin all the changes in the actual strength of the Hollerith Section. I saw all the rosters of the dead and of the new arrivals.

M. DUBOST: Did you communicate this list to an official authority?

VEITH: This list was taken by the American official authorities when I was at Mauthausen. I immediately went back to Mauthausen after my liberation, because I knew where the documents were; and the American authorities then had all the lists which we were able to find.

M. DUBOST: Mr. President, I have no further questions to ask the witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Does the British Prosecutor want to ask any questions?

BRITISH PROSECUTOR: No.

THE PRESIDENT: Does the United States Prosecutor?

UNITED STATES PROSECUTOR: No.

THE PRESIDENT: Do any members of the Defense Counsel wish to ask any questions?

HERR BABEL: I am the defense counsel for the SS and SD. Mr. President, I was in the Dachau Camp on Saturday and at the Augsburg-Göggingen Camp yesterday. I found out various things there which now enable me to question individual witnesses. I could not do this before, as I was not acquainted with local conditions. I should like to put one question. I was unable to attend here this morning on account of a conference to which I was called by General Mitchell. Consequently I did not have the cross-examination of the witness this morning. I have only one question to put to the witness now. I should like to ask whether I may cross-examine the witness further later, or if it is better to withdraw the question?

THE PRESIDENT: You can cross-examine this witness now, but the Tribunal is informed that you left General Mitchell at 15 minutes past 10.

HERR BABEL: Yes, but as a consequence of the conference I had to send a telegram and dispatch some other pressing business so that it was impossible for me to attend the session.

THE PRESIDENT: You can certainly cross-examine the witness now.

HERR BABEL: I have only one more question, namely: The witness stated that the officers in question were driven toward the wire fence. By whom were they so driven?

VEITH: They were driven to the barbed wire by the SS guards who accompanied them, and the entire Mauthausen staff was present. They were also beaten by the SS and by one or two “green” prisoners, who were with them and who were the “Kapo.” In the camps these “green” prisoners were often worse than the SS themselves.

HERR BABEL: Thus, in the Dachau Camp, inside the camp itself, within the wire enclosure, there were almost no SS guards, and that was probably also the case in Mauthausen? However . . .

VEITH: Inside the camp there was only a limited number of SS, but they changed, and none of those who belonged to the troops guarding the camp could fail to be aware of what went on in it; even if they did not enter the camp, they watched it from the watchtowers and from outside, and they saw precisely everything.

HERR BABEL: Were the guards who shot at the prisoners inside or outside the wire enclosure?

VEITH: They were in the watchtowers in the same line as the barbed wire.

HERR BABEL: Could they see from there that the officers were driven to the barbed wire by anyone by means of blows? Could they observe that they were driven there and beaten?

VEITH: They could see it so well that once or twice some of the guards refused to shoot, saying that it was not an attempt to escape and they would not shoot. They were immediately relieved from their posts, and disappeared.

HERR BABEL: Did you see that yourself?

VEITH: I did not see it myself, but I heard about it; it was told by my Kommandoführer among others, who said to me, “There’s a watchguard who refused to shoot.”

HERR BABEL: Who was this Kommandoführer? The chief of the group?

VEITH: The Kommandoführer was Wielemann. I do not remember his rank. He was not Unterscharführer, but the rank immediately below Unterscharführer, and he was in charge of the Hollerith section in Mauthausen.

HERR BABEL: I thank you.

I have no more questions to ask just now. I shall, however, make application to call the witness again, and I shall then take the opportunity to ask the rest, to put such further questions to him as I consider necessary. I request you to retain him for this purpose, here in Nuremberg. I am not in a position to cross-examine the witness this afternoon, as I did not hear his statements this morning, and I would request that the witness . . .

THE PRESIDENT: You ought to have been here. If you were released from an interview with General Mitchell at 10:15, there seems to the Tribunal, to me at any rate, to be no reason why you should not have been here while this witness was being examined.

HERR BABEL: Mr. President, this morning I discussed with General Mitchell some questions with which I have been occupied for a long time. General Mitchell agreed in the course of our conversation that my duties and activities are so extensive that it will now be necessary to appoint a second defense counsel for the SS; my presence at the sessions claims so much of my working time and has become so exhausting and so burdensome that I am often compelled to be absent from the Court. I am sorry, but in the prevailing circumstances, I cannot help it.

Further, I would like to say this: So far, over 40,000 members of the SS have made applications to the Tribunal; and although many of these are collective and not individual applications, you can imagine how wide the field is.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, no doubt your work is extensive, but this morning, as I have already told you, General Mitchell has informed the Tribunal that his interview with you finished at 10:15; and it appears to the Tribunal that you must have known that the witnesses who were giving evidence this morning were giving evidence about concentration camps.

In addition to that, you had obtained the assistance of another counsel, I think, Dr. Marx, to appear on your behalf, and he did appear on your behalf; and he will have an opportunity of cross-examining this witness if he wishes to do so now. The Tribunal considers that you must conclude your cross-examination of this witness now. I mean to say, you may ask any further questions of the witness that you wish.

HERR BABEL: It all amounts to whether I can put a question, and this I cannot do at the moment; therefore, I must renounce the cross-examination of the witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other questions to put, M. Dubost? There may be some other German counsel who wish to cross-examine this witness.

M. Dubost, do you wish to address the Tribunal?

M. DUBOST: Your Honor, I would like to state to the Tribunal that we have no reason whatsoever to fear a cross-examination of our witness or of this morning’s witness, at any time; and we are ready to ask our witnesses to stay in Nuremberg as long as may be necessary to reply to any questions from the Defense.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Babel, in view of the offer of the French Prosecutor to keep the witness in Nuremberg, the Tribunal will allow you to put any questions you wish to put to him in the course of the next 2 days. Do you understand?

HERR BABEL: Yes.

DR. KURT KAUFFMANN (Counsel for Defendant Kaltenbrunner): Before I question the witness, I allow myself to raise one point which, I believe, will have an important influence on the good progress of the proceedings. The point I wish to raise is the following, and I speak in the name of my colleagues as well: Would it not be well to come to an agreement that both the Prosecution and the Defense be informed the day before a witness is brought in, which witness is to be heard? The material has now become so considerable that circumstances make it impossible to ask pertinent questions, questions which are urgently necessary in the interest of all parties.

As far as the Defense is concerned, we are ready to inform the Tribunal and the Prosecution of the witnesses we intend to ask for examination, at least one day before they are to be heard.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has already expressed its wish that they should be informed beforehand of the witnesses who are to be called and upon what subject. I hope that Counsel for the Prosecution will take note of this wish.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, I thank you.

A point of special significance emerges from the statements of the witness we heard this morning, as well as from the statements of this witness; and this point concerns something which may be of decisive importance for the Trial as a whole. The Prosecution . . .

THE PRESIDENT: You are not here to make a speech at the moment. You are to ask the witness questions.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes. It is the question of the responsibility of the German people. The witness has stated that the civilian population was in a position to know what was going on. I shall now try to ascertain the truth by means of a series of questions.

Did civilians look on when executions took place? Would you answer this?

VEITH: They could see the corpses scattered along the roads when the prisoners were shot while returning in convoys, and corpses were even thrown from the trains. And they could always take note of the emaciated condition of these prisoners who worked outside, because they saw them.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Do you know that it was forbidden on pain of death to say anything outside the camp about the atrocities, anything in the way of cruelties, torture, et cetera, that took place inside?

VEITH: As I spent 2 years in the camp I saw them. Some of them I saw myself, and the rest were described to me by eyewitnesses.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Could you please repeat that again? Did you see the secrecy order? What did you see?

VEITH: Not the order, I saw the execution and that is worse.

DR. KAUFFMANN: My question was this: Do you know that the strictest orders were given to the SS personnel, to the executioners, et cetera, not to speak even inside the camp, much less outside of it, of the atrocities that went on and that eyewitnesses who spoke of them rendered themselves liable to the most rigorous penalties, including the death penalty? Do you know anything about that, about such a practice inside the camps? Perhaps you will tell me whether you yourself were allowed to talk about any observations of the kind.

VEITH: I know that liberated prisoners had to sign a statement saying that they would never reveal what had happened in the camp and that they had to forget what had happened; but those who were in contact with the population, and there were many of them, did not fail to talk about it. Furthermore, Mauthausen was situated on a hill. There was a crematorium, which emitted flames 3 feet high. When you see flames 3 feet high coming out of a chimney every night, you are bound to wonder what it is; and everyone must have known that it was a crematorium.

DR. KAUFFMANN: I have no further question. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Does any other counsel for the defendants wish to ask any questions? Did you tell us who the “green prisoners” were? You mentioned “green prisoners.”

VEITH: Yes, these “green prisoners” were prisoners convicted under the common law. They were used by the SS to police the camps. As I have already said, they were often more bestial than the SS themselves and acted as their executioners. They did the work with which the SS did not wish to soil their hands; they were doing all the dirty work, but always by order of the Kommandoführer.

This contact with the “green” Germans was terrible for the internees, particularly for the political internees. They could not bear the sight of them, because they realized that we were not their sort, and they persecuted us for that alone. It was the same in all the camps. In all the camps we were bullied by the German criminals serving with the SS.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, do you wish to ask any other question?

M. DUBOST: Your Honor, I have no more questions to ask.

THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness can retire.

[The witness left the stand.]

M. DUBOST: I shall request the Tribunal to authorize us to hear the French witness, Dr. Dupont.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Very well.

[The witness, Dupont, took the stand.]

THE PRESIDENT: Is your name Dr. Dupont?

DR. VICTOR DUPONT (Witness): Dupont, Victor.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me? I swear that I will speak without hate or fear, that I will tell the truth, all the truth, nothing but the truth.

[The witness repeated the oath in French.]

THE PRESIDENT: Raise your right hand and say, “I swear.”

DUPONT: I swear.

THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.

M. DUBOST: Your name is Victor Dupont?

DUPONT: Yes, I am called Victor Dupont.

M. DUBOST: You were born on 12 December 1909?

DUPONT: That is correct.

M. DUBOST: At Charmes in the Vosges?

DUPONT: That is correct.

M. DUBOST: You are of French nationality, born of French parents?

DUPONT: That is correct.

M. DUBOST: You have won honorable distinctions. What are they?

DUPONT: I have the Legion of Honor, I am a Chevalier of the Legion of Honor. I have 2 Army citations, and I have the Resistance Medal.

M. DUBOST: Were you deported to Buchenwald?

DUPONT: I was deported to Buchenwald on 24 January 1944.

M. DUBOST: You stayed there?

DUPONT: I stayed there 15 months.

M. DUBOST: Until 20 May 1945?

DUPONT: No, until 20 April 1945.

M. DUBOST: Will you make your statement on the regime in the concentration camp where you were interned and the aim of those who prescribed this regime?

DUPONT: When I arrived at Buchenwald I soon became aware of the difficult living conditions. The regime imposed upon the prisoners was not based on any principle of justice. The principle which formed the basis of this regime was the principle of the purge. I will explain.

We—I am speaking of the French—were grouped together at Buchenwald almost all of us, without having been tried by any Tribunal. In 1942, 1943, 1944, and 1945, it was quite unusual to pass any formal judgment on the prisoners. Many of us were interrogated and then deported; others were cleared by the interrogation and deported all the same. Others again were not interrogated at all. I shall give you three examples.

On 11 November 1943 elements estimated at several hundred persons were arrested at Grenoble during a demonstration commemorating the Armistice. They were brought to Buchenwald, where the greater part died. The same thing happened in the village of Verchenie (Drôme) in October 1943. I saw them at Buchenwald too. It happened again in April 1944 at St. Claude, and I saw these people brought in in August 1944.

In this way, various elements were assembled at Buchenwald subject to martial law. But there were also all kinds of people, including some who were obviously innocent, who had either been cleared by interrogation or not even interrogated at all. Finally, there were some political prisoners. They had been deported because they were members of parties which were to be suppressed.

That does not mean that the interrogations were not to be taken seriously. The interrogations which I underwent and which I saw others undergo were particularly inhuman. I shall enumerate a few of the methods:

Every imaginable kind of beating, immersion in bathtubs, squeezing of testicles, hanging, crushing of the head in iron bands, and the torturing of entire families in each other’s sight. I have, in particular, seen a wife tortured before her husband; and children were tortured before their mothers. For the sake of precision, I will quote one name: Francis Goret of the Rue de Bourgogne in Paris was tortured before his mother. Once in the camp, conditions were the same for everyone.

M. DUBOST: You spoke of racial purging as a social policy. What was the criterion?

DUPONT: At Buchenwald various elements described as “political,” “national”—mainly Jews and Gypsies—and “asocial”—especially criminals—were herded together under the same regime. There were criminals of every nation: Germans, Czechs, Frenchmen, et cetera, all living together under the same regime. A purge does not necessarily imply extermination, but this purge was achieved by means of the extermination already mentioned. It began for us in certain cases; the decision was taken quite suddenly. I shall give one example. In 1944 a convoy of several hundred Gypsy children arrived at Buchenwald, by what administrative mystery we never knew. They were assembled during the winter of 1944 and were to be sent on to Auschwitz to be gassed. One of the most tragic memories of my deportation is the way in which these children, knowing perfectly well what was in store for them, were driven into the vans, screaming and crying. They went on to Auschwitz the same day.

In other cases the extermination was carried out by progressive stages. It had already begun when the convoy arrived. For instance, in the French convoy which left Compiègne on 24 January 1944 and arrived on 26 January, I saw one van containing 100 persons, of which 12 were dead and 8 insane. During the period of my deportation I saw numerous transports come in. The same thing happened every time; only the numbers varied. In this way the elimination of a certain proportion had already been achieved when the convoy arrived. Then they were put in quarantine and exposed to cold for several hours, while roll call was taken. The weaker died. Then came extermination through work. Some of them were picked out and sent to Kommandos such as Dora, S III, and Laura. I noticed that after those departures, which took place every month, when the contingent was brought up to strength again, truck-loads of dead were brought back to Buchenwald. I even attended the post-mortems on them, and I can tell you the results. The lesions were those of a very advanced stage of cachexy. Those who had stood up to conditions for one, two, or three months very often exhibited the lesions characteristic of acute tuberculosis, mostly of the granular type. In Buchenwald itself prisoners had to work; and there, as everywhere else, the only hope of survival lay in work. Extermination in Buchenwald was carried out in accordance with a principle of selection laid down by the medical officer in charge, Dr. Shiedlauski. These selections . . .

M. DUBOST: Excuse me for interrupting. What is the nationality of this medical officer in charge?

DUPONT: He was a German SS doctor.

M. DUBOST: Are you sure of that?

DUPONT: Yes, I am quite sure.

M. DUBOST: Are you testifying as an eyewitness?

DUPONT: I am testifying as an eyewitness.

M. DUBOST: Go on, please.

DUPONT: Shiedlauski carried out the selection and picked out the sick and invalids. Prior to January 1945 they were sent to Auschwitz; later on they went to Bergen-Belsen. None of them ever returned.

Another case which I witnessed concerns a Jewish labor squad which was sent to Auschwitz and stayed there several months. When they came back, they were unfit for even the lighter work. A similar fate overtook them. They also were sent to Auschwitz again. I myself personally witnessed these things. I was present at the selection and I witnessed their departure.

Later on, the executions in Buchenwald took place in the camp itself. To my own knowledge they began in September 1944 in room 7, a little room in the Revier. The men were done away with by means of inter-cardiac injections. The output was not great; it did not exceed a few score a day, at the most.

Later on more and more convoys came in, and the number of cachexy cases increased. The executions had to be speeded up. At first they were carried out as soon as the transports arrived; but from January 1945 onwards they were taken care of in a special block, Block 61. At that date all those nicknamed “Mussulmans” on account of their appearance were collected in this block. We never saw them without their blankets over their shoulders. They were unfit for even the lightest work. They all had to go through Block 61. The death toll varied daily from a minimum of 10 to about 200 in Block 61. The execution was performed by injecting phenol into the heart in the most brutal manner. The bodies were then carted to the crematorium mostly during roll calls or at night. Finally, extermination was also always assured at the end by convoys. The convoys which left Buchenwald while the Allies were advancing were used to assure extermination.

To give an example: At the end of March 1945 elements withdrawn from the S III detachment arrived at Buchenwald. They were in a state of complete exhaustion when they arrived and quite unfit for any kind of exertion. They were the first to be re-expedited, two days after their arrival. It was only about half a mile from their starting point in the small camp, that is, at the back of the Buchenwald Camp, to their point of assembly for roll call; and to give you an idea of the state of weakness in which these people were, I need only say that between this starting point and their assembly point, that is, over a distance of half a mile, we saw 60 of them collapse and die. They could not go on further. Most of them died very soon, in a few hours or in the course of the next day. So much for the systematic extermination which I witnessed in Buchenwald, including . . .

M. DUBOST: What about those who were left?

DUPONT: Those who were left when the last convoy went out? That is a complicated story. We were deeply grieved about them. About the 1st of April, though I cannot guarantee the exact date, the commander of the camp, Pister, assembled a large number of prisoners and addressed them as follows:

“The Allied advance has already reached the immediate neighborhood of Buchenwald. I wish to hand over to the Allies the keys of the camp. I do not want any atrocities. I wish the camp as a whole to be handed over.”

As a matter of actual fact, the Allied advance was held up, more than we wanted at least, and evacuation was begun. A delegation of prisoners went to see the commander, reminding him of his word, for he had given his word emphasizing that it was his “word of honor as a soldier.” He seemed acutely embarrassed and explained that Sauckel, the Governor of Thuringia, had given orders that no prisoner should remain in Buchenwald, for that constituted a danger to the province.

Furthermore, we knew that all who knew the secrets of the administration of Buchenwald Camp would be put out of the way. A few days before we were liberated 43 of our comrades belonging to different nationalities were called out to be done away with, and an unusual phenomenon occurred. The camp revolted; the men were hidden and never given up. We also knew that under no circumstances would anyone who had been employed, either in the experimental block or in the infirmary, be allowed to leave the camp. That is all I have to say about the last few days.

M. DUBOST: This officer in command of the camp, whom you have just said gave his word of honor as a soldier, was he a soldier?

DUPONT: His attitude towards the prisoners was ruthless; but he had his orders. Frankly, he was a particular type of soldier; but he was not acting on his own initiative in treating the prisoners in this way.

M. DUBOST: To what branch of the service did he belong?

DUPONT: He belonged to the SS Totenkopf Division.

M. DUBOST: Was he an SS man?

DUPONT: Yes, he was an SS man.

M. DUBOST: He was acting on orders, you say?

DUPONT: He was certainly acting on orders.

M. DUBOST: For what purposes were the prisoners used?

DUPONT: The prisoners were used in such a way that no attention was paid to the fact that they were human beings. They were used for experimental purposes. At Buchenwald the experiments were made in Block 46. The men who were to be employed there were always selected by means of a medical examination. On those occasions when I was present it was performed by Dr. Shiedlauski, of whom I have already spoken.

M. DUBOST: Was he a doctor?

DUPONT: Yes, he was a doctor. The internees were used for the hardest labor; in the Laura mines, working in the salt mines as, for instance, in the Mansleben-am-See Kommando, clearing up bomb debris. It must be remembered that the more difficult the labor conditions were, the harsher was the supervision by the guards.

The internees were used in Buchenwald for any kind of labor; in earth works, in quarries, and in factories. To cite a particular case: There were two factories attached to Buchenwald, the Gustloff works and the Mühlbach works. They were munition factories under technical and non-military management. In this particular case there was some sort of rivalry between the SS and the technical management of the factory. The technical management, concerned with its output, took the part of the prisoners to the extent of occasionally obtaining supplementary rations for them. Internee labor had certain advantages. The cost was negligible, and from a security point of view the maximum of secrecy was ensured, as the internees had no contact with the outside world and therefore no leakage was possible.

M. DUBOST: You mean leakage of military information?

DUPONT: I mean leakage of military information.

M. DUBOST: Could outsiders see that the internees were ill-treated and wretched?

DUPONT: That is another question, certainly.

M. DUBOST: Will you answer it later?

DUPONT: I shall answer it later. I have omitted one detail. The internees were also used to a certain extent after death. The ashes resulting from the cremations were thrown into the excrement pit and served to fertilize the fields around Buchenwald. I add this detail because it struck me vividly at the time.

Finally, as I said, work, whatever it might be, was the internees’ only chance of survival. As soon as they were no longer of any possible use, they were done for.

M. DUBOST: Were not internees used as “blood donors,” involuntary of course?

DUPONT: I forgot that point. Prisoners assigned to light work, whose output was poor, were used as blood donors. Members of the Wehrmacht came several times. I saw them twice at Buchenwald, taking blood from these men. The blood was taken in a ward known as CP-2, that is, Operation Ward 2.

M. DUBOST: This was done on orders from higher quarters?

DUPONT: I do not see how it could have been done otherwise.

M. DUBOST: On their own initiative?

DUPONT: Not on the initiative of anyone in the camp. These elements had nothing to do with the camp administration or the guards. I must make it clear that those whom I saw belonged to the Wehrmacht, whereas we were guarded by SS, all of them from the Totenkopf Division. Towards the end, a special use was made of them.

In the early months of 1945, members of the Gestapo came to Buchenwald and took away all the papers of those who had died, in order to re-establish their identity and to make out forged papers. One Jew was specially employed to touch up photographs and to adapt the papers which had belonged to the dead for the use of persons whom, of course, we did not know. The Jew disappeared, and I do not know what became of him. We never saw him again.

But this utilization of identification papers was not confined to the dead. Several hundred French internees were summoned to the “Fliegerverwaltung” and there subjected to a very precise interrogation on their person, their connections, their convictions, and their background. They were then told that they would on no account be allowed to receive any correspondence, or even parcels—those of them who ever received any. From an administrative point of view all traces of them were effaced and contact with the outside world was rendered even more impossible for them than it had been under ordinary circumstances. We were deeply concerned about the fate of these comrades. We were liberated very soon after that, and I can only say that prisoners were used in this way, that their identification papers were used for manufacturing forged documents.

M. DUBOST: What was the effect of this kind of life?

DUPONT: The effect of this kind of life on the human organism?

M. DUBOST: On the human organism.

DUPONT: As to the human organism, there was only one effect: the degradation of the human being. The living conditions which I have just described were enough in themselves to produce such degradation. It was done systematically. An unrelenting will seemed to be at work to reduce those men to the same level, the lowest possible level of human degradation.

To begin with, the first degrading factor was the way in which they were mixed. It was permissible to mix nationalities, but not to mix indiscriminately every possible type of prisoner: political, military—for the members of the French resistance movement were soldiers—racial elements, and common-law criminals.

Criminals of all nationalities were herded together with their compatriots, and every nationality lived side by side, so conditions of living were distressing. In addition, there was overcrowding, unsanitary conditions, and compulsory labor. I shall give a few examples to show that prisoners were mixed quite indiscriminately.

In March 1944, I saw the French General Duval die. He had been working on the “terrasse” with me all day. When we came back, he was covered with mud and completely exhausted. He died a few hours later.

The French General Vernaud died on a straw mattress, filthy with excrement, in room Number 6, where those on the verge of death were taken, surrounded by dying men.

I saw M. De Tessan die . . .

M. DUBOST: Will you explain to the Tribunal who M. De Tessan was?

DUPONT: M. De Tessan was a former French minister, married to an American. He also died on a straw mattress, covered with pus, from a disease known as septicopyohemia.

I also witnessed the death of Count de Lipkowski, who had done brilliant military service in this war. He had been granted the honors of war by the German Army and had, for one thing, been invited to Paris by Rommel, who desired to show the admiration he felt for his military brilliance. He died miserably in the winter of 1944.

One further instance: The Belgian Minister Janson was in the camp living under the conditions which I have already described, and of which you must have already heard very often. He died miserably, a physical and mental wreck. His intellect had gone and he had partially lost his reason.

I cite only extreme cases and especially those of generals, as they were said to be granted special conditions. I saw no sign of that.

The last stage in this process of the degradation of human beings was the setting of internee against internee.

M. DUBOST: Before dealing with this point, will you describe the conditions in which you found your former professor, Léon Kindberg, professor of medicine?

DUPONT: I studied medicine under Professor Maurice Léon Kindberg at the Beaujon Hospital.

M. DUBOST: In Paris?

DUPONT: Yes, in Paris. A very highly cultured and brilliantly intelligent man. In January 1945 I learned that he had just arrived from Monovitz. I found him in Block 58, a block which in normal circumstances would hold 300 men, and into which 1,200 had been crowded—Hungarians, Poles, Russians, Czechs, with a large proportion of Jews in an extraordinary state of misery. I did not recognize Léon Kindberg because there was nothing to distinguish him from the usual type to be found in these blocks. There was no longer any sign of intellect in him and it was hard to find anything of the man that I had formerly known. We managed to get him out of that block but his health was unfortunately too much impaired and he died shortly after his liberation.

M. DUBOST: Can you tell the Tribunal, as far as you know, the “crimes” committed by this man?

DUPONT: After the armistice Léon Kindberg settled in Toulouse to practice the treatment of pulmonary consumption. I know from an absolutely reliable source that he had taken no part whatsoever in activities directed against the German occupation authorities in France. They found out that he was a Jew and as such he was arrested and deported. He drifted into Buchenwald by way of Auschwitz and Monovitz.

M. DUBOST: What crime had General Duval committed that he should be imprisoned along with pimps, moral degenerates, and murderers? What had General Vernaud done?

DUPONT: I know nothing about the activities of General Duval and General Vernaud during the occupation. All I can say is that they were certainly not asocial.

M. DUBOST: What about Count de Lipkowski and M. De Tessan?

DUPONT: Nor has the Count de Lipkowski or M. De Tessan committed any of the faults usually attributed to asocial elements or common-law criminals.

M. DUBOST: You may proceed.

DUPONT: The means used to achieve the final degradation of the internees as a whole was the torture of them by their fellow prisoners. Let me give a particularly brutal instance. In Kommando A. S. 6, which was situated at Mansleben-am-See, 70 kilometers from Buchenwald, there were prisoners of every nationality, including a large portion of Frenchmen. I had two friends there: Antoine d’Aimery, a son of General d’Aimery, and Thibaut, who was studying to become a missionary.

M. DUBOST: Catholic?

DUPONT: Catholic. At Mansleben-am-See hangings took place in public in the hall of a factory connected with the salt mine. The SS were present at these hangings in full dress uniform, wearing their decorations.

The prisoners were forced to be present at these hangings under threats of the most cruel beatings. When they hanged the poor wretches, the prisoners had to give the Hitler salute. Worse still, one prisoner was chosen to pull away the stool on which the victim stood. He could not evade the order, as the consequences to himself would have been too grave. When the execution had been carried out, the prisoners had to file off in front of the victim between two SS men. They were made to touch the body and, gruesome detail, look the dead man in the eyes. I believe that men who had been forced to go through such rites must inevitably lose the sense of their dignity as human beings.

In Buchenwald itself all the executive work was entrusted to the internees, that is, the hangings were carried out by a German prisoner assisted by other prisoners. The camp was policed by prisoners. When someone in the camp was sentenced to death, it was their duty to find him and take him to the place of execution.

Selection for the labor squads, with which we were well acquainted, especially for Dora, Laura, and S III—extermination detachments—was carried out by prisoners, who decided which of us were to go there. In this way the internees were forced down to the worst possible level of degradation, inasmuch as every man was forced to become the executioner of his fellow.

I have already referred to Block 61, where the extermination of the physically unfit and those otherwise unsuited for labor was carried out. These executions were also carried out by prisoners under SS supervision and control. From the point of view of humanity in general, this was perhaps the worst crime of all, for these men who were constrained to torture their fellow-beings have now been restored to life, but profoundly changed. What is to become of them? What are they going to do?

M. DUBOST: Who was responsible for these crimes as far as your personal knowledge goes?

DUPONT: One thing which strikes me as being particularly significant is that the methods which I observed in Buchenwald now appear to have been the same, or almost the same, as those prevailing in all the other camps. The degree of uniformity in the way in which the camps were run is clear evidence of orders from higher quarters. In the case of Buchenwald, in particular, the personnel, no matter how rough it might be, would not have done such things on their own initiative. Moreover, the camp chief and the SS doctor, himself, always pleaded superior orders, often in a vague manner. The name most frequently invoked was that of Himmler. Other names also were given. The chief medical officer for all the camps, Lolling, was mentioned on numerous occasions in connection with the extermination block, especially by an SS doctor in the camp, named Bender. In regard to the selection of invalids or Jews to be sent to Auschwitz or Bergen-Belsen to be gassed, I heard the name of Pohl mentioned.

M. DUBOST: What were the functions of Pohl?

DUPONT: He was chief of the SS administration in Berlin, Division D 2.

M. DUBOST: Could the German people as a whole have been in ignorance of these atrocities, or were they bound to know of them?

DUPONT: As these camps had been in existence for years, it is impossible for them not to have known. Our transport stopped at Trèves on its way in. The prisoners in some vans were completely naked while in others they were clothed. There was a crowd of people around the station and they all saw the transport. Some of them excited the SS men patrolling the platform. But there were other channels through which information could reach the population. To begin with, there were squads working outside the camps. Labor squads went out from Buchenwald to Weimar, Erfurt, and Jena. They left in the morning and came back at night, and during the day they were among the civilian population. In the factories, too, the technical crew were not members of the armed forces. The “Meister” were not SS men. They went home every night after supervising the work of the prisoners all day. Certain factories even employed civilian labor—the Gustloff works in Weimar, for instance. During the work, the internees and civilians were together.

The civil authorities were responsible for victualling the camps and were allowed to enter them, and I have seen civilian trucks coming into the camp.

The railway authorities were necessarily informed on those matters. Numerous trains carried prisoners daily from one camp to another; or from France to Germany; and these trains were driven by railway men. Moreover, there was a regular daily train to Buchenwald as a terminal station. The railway administrative authorities must, therefore, have been well informed.

Orders were also given in the factories, and industrialists could not fail to be informed regarding the personnel they employed in their factories. I may add that visits took place; the German prisoners were sometimes visited. I knew certain German internees, and I know that on the occasion of those visits they talked to their relatives, which they could hardly do without informing their home circle of what was going on. It would appear that it is impossible to deny that the German people knew of the camps.

M. DUBOST: The Army?

DUPONT: The Army knew of the camps. At least, this is what I could observe. Every week so-called commissions came to Buchenwald, a group of officers who came to visit the camp. There were SS among these officers; but I very often saw members of the Wehrmacht, the Luftwaffe, who came on those visits. Sometimes we were able to identify the personalities who visited the camp, rarely so far as I was concerned. On 22 March 1945 General Mrugowski came to visit the camp. In particular, he spent a long time in Block 61. He was accompanied on this visit by an SS general and the chief medical officer of the camp, Dr. Shiedlauski.

Another point, during the last few months, the Buchenwald guard, plus SS men . . .

M. DUBOST: Excuse me for interrupting you. Could you tell us about Block 61?

DUPONT: Block 61 was the extermination block for those suffering from cachexy—in other words, those arrived in such a state of exhaustion that they were totally unfit for work.

M. DUBOST: Is it direct testimony you are giving about this visit to Block 61?

DUPONT: This is from my own personal observation.

M. DUBOST: Whom does it concern?

DUPONT: General Mrugowski.

M. DUBOST: In the Army?

DUPONT: A doctor and an SS general whom I cannot identify.

M. DUBOST: Were university circles unaware of the work done in the camps?

DUPONT: At the Pathological Institute in Buchenwald, pathological preparations were made; and naturally some of them were out of the ordinary, since—and I am speaking as a doctor—we encountered cases that can no longer be observed, cases such as have been described in the books of the last century. Some excellent pieces of work were prepared and sent to universities, especially the University of Jena. On the other hand there were also some exhibits which could not properly be described as anatomical. Some prepared tattoo marks were sent to universities.

M. DUBOST: Did you personally see that?

DUPONT: I saw these tattoo marks prepared.

M. DUBOST: Then how did they obtain the anatomic exhibits, how did they get these tattoo marks? They waited for a natural death, of course.

DUPONT: The cases I observed were natural deaths or executions. Before our arrival—and I can name witnesses who can testify to this—they killed a man to get these tattoo marks. It happened, I must emphasize, when I was not at Buchenwald. I am repeating what was told me by witnesses whose names I will give. During the period when the camp was commanded by Koch, people who had particularly artistic tattoo marks were killed. The witness I can refer to is a Luxembourger called Nicolas Simon who lives in Luxembourg. He spent 6 years in Buchenwald in exceptional conditions where he had unprecedented opportunities of observation.

M. DUBOST: But I am told that Koch was sentenced to death and executed because of these excesses.

DUPONT: As far as I know, Koch was mixed up with some sort of swindling affair. He quarrelled with the SS administration. He was undoubtedly arrested and imprisoned.

THE PRESIDENT: We had better have an adjournment now.

[A recess was taken.]

M. DUBOST: We stopped at the end of the Koch story and the witness was telling the Tribunal that Koch had been executed not for the crimes that he had committed with regard to the internees in his charge, but because of the numerous dishonest acts of which he had been guilty during his period of service.

Did I understand the witness’ explanation correctly?

DUPONT: I said explicitly that he had been accused of dishonesty. I cannot give precise details of all the charges. I cannot say that he was accused exclusively of dishonest acts by his administration; I know that such charges were made against him, but I have no further information.

M. DUBOST: Have you nothing to add?

DUPONT: I can say that this information came from Dr. Owen, who had been arrested at the same time and released again and who returned to Buchenwald towards the end, that is, early in 1945.

M. DUBOST: What was the nationality of this doctor?

DUPONT: German. He was in detention. He was an SS man and Koch and he were arrested at the same time. Owen was released and came back to Buchenwald restored to his rank and his functions at the beginning of 1945. He was quite willing to talk to the prisoners and the information that I have given comes from him.

M. DUBOST: I have no further questions to ask the witness, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Does any member of the Defense Counsel wish to ask any questions?

DR. MERKEL: I am the Defense Counsel for the Gestapo.

Witness, you previously stated that the methods of treatment in Buchenwald were not peculiar to the Buchenwald Camp but must be ascribed to a general order. The reasons you gave for this statement were that you had seen those customs and methods in all the other camps too. How am I to understand this expression “in all the other camps”?

DUPONT: I am speaking of concentration camps; to be precise, a certain number of them, Mauthausen, Dachau, Sachsenhausen; labor squads such as Dora, Laura, S III, Mansleben, Ebensee, to mention these only.

DR. MERKEL: Were you yourself in those camps?

DUPONT: I myself went to Buchenwald. I collected exact testimony about the other camps from friends who were there. In any case, the number of friends of mine who died is a sufficiently eloquent proof that extermination was carried out in the same way in all the camps.

HERR BABEL: I should like to know to what block you belonged. Perhaps you can tell the Tribunal—you have already mentioned the point—how the prisoners were distributed? Did they not also bear certain external markings, red patches on the clothing of some and green on that of others?

DUPONT: There were in fact a number of badges, all of which were found in the same Kommandos. To give an example, where I was—in the “terrassekommando” known as “Entwässerung” (drainage)—I worked along side of German “common-laws” wearing the green badge. Regarding the nationalities in this Kommando, there were Russians, Czechs, Belgians, and French. Our badges were different; our treatment was identical, and in this particular case we were even commanded by “common-laws.”

HERR BABEL: I did not quite hear the beginning of your answer. I asked whether the internees were divided into specific categories identifiable externally by means of stars or some kind of distinguishing mark: green, blue, et cetera?

DUPONT: I said that there were various badges in the camp, triangular badges which applied in principle to different categories, but all the men were mixed up together, and subjected to the same treatment.

HERR BABEL: I did not ask you about their treatment, but about the distinctive badges.

DUPONT: For the French it was a badge in the form of a shield.

HERR BABEL: For all the prisoners, not only the French.

DUPONT: I am answering you. In the case of the French, who were those I knew best, the red, political badge was given to everyone without discrimination, including the prisoners brought over from Fort Barraut, who were common-law criminals. I saw the same thing among the Czechs and the Russians. It is true that the use of different badges had been intended, but that was never put into practice in any reasonable way.

To come back to what I have already stated, even if there were different badges, the people were all mixed up together, nevertheless, and subjected exactly to the same treatment and the same conditions.

HERR BABEL: We have already heard several times that prisoners of various nationalities were mixed up together. That is not what I asked you. You were in the camp for a sufficiently long period to be able to answer my question. How were these prisoners divided? As far as I know, they were divided into criminal, political, and other groups, and each group distinguished by a special sign worn on the clothing—green, blue, red, or some other color.

DUPONT: The use of different badges for different categories had been planned. These categories were mixed up together. “Criminals” were side by side with prisoners classed as “political.” There were, however, blocks in which one or another of those elements predominated; but they were not divided up into specific groups distinguished by the particular badge they wore.

HERR BABEL: I have been told, for instance, that political prisoners wore blue badges and the criminals wore red ones. We have already had a witness who confirmed this to a certain extent by stating that criminals wore a green badge and asocial offenders a different badge and that the category to which they belonged could be seen at a glance.

DUPONT: It is true that different badges existed. It is true that the use of these badges for different categories was foreseen; but if I am to confine myself to the truth, I must emphasize the fact that the full use was not made of these badges. For the French, in particular, there were only political badges; and this increased the confusion still more since notorious criminals from the ordinary civil prisons were regarded everywhere as political prisoners. The badges were intended to identify the different existing categories, but they were not employed systematically. They were not employed at all for the French prisoners.

HERR BABEL: If I understand you correctly, you say that all French prisoners were classified as political prisoners?

DUPONT: That is correct.

HERR BABEL: Now, among these French prisoners, as you said yourself, is it not true to say that there were not only political prisoners but also a large proportion of criminals?

DUPONT: There were some among . . .

HERR BABEL: At least, I took your previous statement to mean that. You said that quite definitely.

DUPONT: I did say so. I said that there were criminals from special prisons who were not given the green badge with an F, which they should have received, but the political badge.

HERR BABEL: What was your employment in the camp? You are a doctor, are you not?

DUPONT: I arrived in January. For 3 months I was assigned first to the quarry and then to the “terrasse.” After that I was assigned to the Revier, that is to say the camp infirmary.

HERR BABEL: What were your duties there?

DUPONT: I was assigned to the ambulance service for internal diseases.

HERR BABEL: Were you able to act on your own initiative? What sort of instructions did you receive regarding the treatment of patients?

DUPONT: We acted under the control of an SS doctor. We had a certain number of beds for certain patients, in the proportion of one bed to 20 patients. We had practically no medical supplies. I worked in the infirmary up to the liberation.

HERR BABEL: Did you receive instructions regarding the treatment of patients? Were you told to look after them properly or were you given instructions to administer treatment which would cause death?

DUPONT: As regards that, I was ordered to select the incurables for extermination. I never carried out this order.

HERR BABEL: Were you told to select them for extermination? I did not quite hear your reply. Will you please repeat it?

DUPONT: I was ordered to select those who were dangerously ill so that they might be sent to Block 61 where they were to be exterminated. That was the only order I received concerning the patients.

HERR BABEL: “Where were they to be exterminated?” I asked if you were told that they were to be selected for extermination. Were you told—“They will be sent to Block 61?” Were you also told what was to happen to them in Block 61?

DUPONT: Block 61 was in charge of a noncommissioned officer called Wilhelm, who personally supervised the executions; and it was he who ordered what patients should be selected to be sent to that block. I think the situation is sufficiently clear.

HERR BABEL: I beg your pardon. You were given no specific details?

DUPONT: The order to send the incurables . . .

HERR BABEL: Witness, it strikes me that you are not giving a straightforward answer of “yes” or “no,” but that you persist in evading the question.

DUPONT: It was said that these patients were to be sent to Block 61. Nothing more was added but every patient sent to Block 61 was executed.

HERR BABEL: That is not first-hand observation. You found out or you heard that those who were sent there did not come back.

DUPONT: That is not correct. I could see for myself, for I was the only doctor who could enter Block 61, which was under the command of an internee called Louis Cunish (or Remisch). I was able to get a few of the patients out; the others died.

HERR BABEL: If such a thing was said to you, why did you not say that you would not do it?

DUPONT: If I understand the question correctly, I am being asked why, when I was told to send the most serious cases . . .

HERR BABEL: When you received instructions to select patients for Block 61 why did you not say, “I know what will happen to those people, and therefore I will not do it.”

DUPONT: Because it would have meant death.

HERR BABEL: And what would it have meant if Germans had refused to carry out such an order?

DUPONT: What Germans are you talking about? German internees?

HERR BABEL: A German doctor, if you like, or anyone else employed in the hospital. What would have happened to him if he had received such an order and refused to carry it out?

DUPONT: If an internee refused point-blank to execute such an order, it meant death. In point of fact, we sometimes could evade such orders. I emphasize the fact that I never sent anyone to Block 61.

HERR BABEL: I have one more general question to ask about conditions in the camp. For those who have never seen a camp it is difficult to imagine what conditions were actually like. Perhaps you could give the Tribunal a short description of how the camp was arranged.

DUPONT: I think I have already spoken at sufficient length on the organization of the camp. I should like to ask the President whether it will serve any useful purpose to return to this subject.

THE PRESIDENT: I believe it is not necessary. [To Herr Babel] If you want to put any particular cross-examination to him to show he is not telling the truth, you can, but not to ask him for a general description.

HERR BABEL: The camp consists of an inner site surrounded and secured by barbed wire. The barracks in which the prisoners were housed were inside this camp. How was this inner camp guarded?

THE PRESIDENT: Will you kindly put one question at a time? The question you just put involves three or four different matters.

HERR BABEL: How was the part of the camp in which the living quarters are situated, separated from the rest? What security measures were taken?

DUPONT: The camp was a unified whole, cut off from the rest of the world by an electrified barbed wire network.

HERR BABEL: Where were the guards?

DUPONT: The guards of the camp were in towers situated all around the camp; they were stationed at the gate and they patrolled inside the camp itself.

HERR BABEL: Inside the camp? Inside the barbed wire enclosure?

DUPONT: Obviously, inside the camp and inside the barracks, of course. They had the right to go everywhere.

HERR BABEL: I have been informed that each separate barrack was under the supervision of only one man, a German SS man or a member of some other organization, that there were no other guards, that these guards were not intended to act as guards but only to keep order, and that the so-called Kapos, who were chosen from the ranks of the prisoners, had the same authority as the guards and performed the duties of the guards. It may have been different in Buchenwald. My information comes from Dachau.

DUPONT: I have already answered all these questions in my statement by saying that the camps were run by the SS in a manner which is common knowledge and that in addition the SS employed the internees as intermediaries in many instances. This was the case in Buchenwald and, I suppose, in all the other concentration camps.

HERR BABEL: The answer to the question has again been highly evasive. I shall not, however, pursue the matter any further, as in any case I shall not receive a definite answer.

But I should like to put one further question: You stated in connection with the facts you described that a professor, whose name I could not understand through the earphones and who was, I believe, a professor of your own, was housed in Block 58. You stated in connection with the question of degradation that at first 300 people, I think, were housed there and later on 1,200. Is that correct?

DUPONT: There were 1,200 men in Block 58 when I found Dr. Kindberg there.

HERR BABEL: Yes. And if I understood you correctly, you said that in this block there were not only Frenchmen, but also Russians, Poles, Czechs, and Jews and that a state of degradation was caused not only through the herding together of 1,200 people but also through the intermingling of so many different nationalities.

DUPONT: I want to make it clear that the intermingling of elements speaking a different language, men who are unable to understand each other, is not a crime; but it was a pre-disposing factor which furthered all the other measures employed to bring about a state of human degradation among the prisoners.

HERR BABEL: So you consider that the intermingling of Frenchmen, Russians, Poles, Czechs, and Jews is a degradation?

DUPONT: I do not see the point of this question. The fact of intermingling . . .

HERR BABEL: There is no need for you to see the point; I know why I am asking the question.

DUPONT: The fact of putting men who speak different languages together is not degrading. I did not either think or say such a thing; but the herding together of elements which differ from each other in every respect and especially in that of language, in itself made living conditions more difficult, and paved the way for the application of other measures which I have already described at length and whose final aim was the degradation of the human being.

HERR BABEL: I cannot understand why the necessity of associating with people whose language one does not understand should be degrading.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Babel, he has given his answer, that he considers it tended to degradation. It does not matter whether you understand it or not.

HERR BABEL: Mr. President, the transmission through the earphones is sometimes so imperfect that I, at least, often cannot hear exactly what the witness says and for that reason I have unfortunately been compelled to have an answer repeated from time to time.

M. DUBOST: I should not like the Tribunal to mistake this interpolation for an interruption of the cross-examination; but I think I must say that some confusion was undoubtedly created in the mind of the Defense Counsel just now in consequence of an interpreter’s error which has been brought to my notice.

He asked my witness an insidious question, namely, whether the French deportees were criminals for the most part, and the question was interpreted as follows: whether the French deportees were criminals. The witness answered the question as translated into French and not as asked in German. I therefore request that the question be put once more by the Defense Counsel and correctly translated.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you understand what Mr. Dubost said, Dr. Babel?

HERR BABEL: I think I understand the substance. I think I understand that there was a mistake in the translation. I am not in a position to judge; I cannot follow both the French and German text.

THE PRESIDENT: I think the best course is to continue your cross-examination, if you have any more questions to ask, and Mr. Dubost can clear up the difficulty in re-examination.

HERR BABEL: Mr. President, the Defense Counsel for Kaltenbrunner has already explained today that it is very difficult for the Defense to cross-examine a witness without being informed at least one day before as to the subjects on which the witness is to be heard. The testimony given by today’s witnesses was so voluminous that it is impossible for me to follow it without previous preparation and to prepare and conduct from brief notes the extensive cross-examinations which are necessary.

To my knowledge, the President has already informed Defense Counsel for the organizations that we shall have an opportunity of re-examining the witnesses later or of calling them on our own behalf.

THE PRESIDENT: I have already said what I have to say on behalf of the Tribunal on that point, but as Counsel for the Defense must have anticipated that witnesses would be called as to the conditions in the concentration camps, I should have thought they could have prepared their cross-examination during the 40 or more days during which the Trial has taken place.

HERR BABEL: Mr. President, I do not think that this is the proper time for me to argue the matter with the Tribunal, but I may perhaps be given the opportunity of doing so later in a closed session. I consider this necessary in the interests of the rapid and unhampered progress of the Trial.

I have no desire whatsoever to delay the proceedings. I have the greatest interest in expediting them as far as possible, but I am anxious not to do so at the cost of prejudicing the defense of the organizations.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Babel, I have already pointed out to you that you must have anticipated that the witnesses might be called to state the conditions in concentration camps. You must therefore have had full opportunity during the days the Trial has taken place for making up your mind on what points you would cross-examine, and I see no reason to discuss the matter with you.

HERR BABEL: Thank you for this information. But naturally I cannot know in advance exactly what the witness is going to say, and I cannot cross-examine him until I have heard him. I know, of course, that a witness is going to make a statement about concentration camps but I cannot know in advance which particular points he will discuss.

M. DUBOST: I would ask the Tribunal to note that in questioning the French witness the Defense used certain words the literal translation of which is “for the most part.” This applied to the character of the French deportees. The question was, “Were they criminals for the most part?” The witness understood it to be as I did: “Did you say that they were criminals?” and not “that the convoys were for the most part composed of criminals.” His reply was the natural one. The Tribunal will allow me to ask the witness to give details. What was the proportion of common-law criminals and patriots respectively among the deportees? Was he himself a common-law criminal or a patriot? Were the generals and other personalities whose names he has given us common-law criminals or patriots, speaking generally?

DUPONT: The proportion of French common-law criminals was very small. The common-law criminals came from Fort Barraut in a convoy. I cannot give the exact figures, but there were only a few hundred out of all the internees. In other incoming convoys the proportion of common-law criminals included was only 2 or 3 per thousand.

M. DUBOST: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.

[The witness left the stand.]

THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, are you proposing or asking to call other witnesses upon concentration camps? Because, as I have already pointed out to you, the evidence, with the exception of Dr. Babel’s recent cross-examination, has practically not been cross-examined; and it is supported by other film evidence. We are instructed by Article 18 of the Charter to conduct the Trial in as expeditious a way as possible; and I will point out to you, as ordered under 24e of the Charter, you have the opportunity of calling rebutting evidence, if it were necessary and, therefore, if the evidence which has been so fully gone into as to the condition in concentration camps . . .

M. DUBOST: The witness whom I propose to ask the Tribunal to hear will elucidate a point which has been pending for several weeks. The Tribunal will remember that when my American colleagues were presenting their evidence, the question of ascertaining whether Kaltenbrunner had been in Mauthausen arose. In evidence of this, I am going to call M. Boix, who will prove to the Tribunal that Kaltenbrunner had been in Mauthausen. He has photographs of that visit and the Tribunal will see them, as the witness brought them with him.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

[The witness, Boix, took the stand.]

THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?

M. FRANÇOIS BOIX (Witness): François Boix.

THE PRESIDENT: Are you French?

BOIX: I am a Spanish refugee.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me. I swear to speak without hate or fear, to say the truth, all the truth, only the truth.

[The witness repeated the oath in French.]

THE PRESIDENT: Raise your right hand and say, “I swear.”

BOIX: I swear.

THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.

M. Dubost, will you spell the name.

M. DUBOST: B-O-I-X. [Turning to the witness.] You were born on 14 August 1920 in Barcelona?

BOIX: Yes.

M. DUBOST: You are a news photographer, and you were interned in the camp of Mauthausen, since . . .

BOIX: Since 27 January 1941.

M. DUBOST: You handed over to the commission of inquiry a certain number of photographs?

BOIX: Yes.

M. DUBOST: They are going to be projected on the screen and you will state under oath under what circumstances and where these pictures were taken?

BOIX: Yes.

M. DUBOST: How did you obtain these pictures?

BOIX: Owing to my professional knowledge, I was sent to Mauthausen to work in the identification branch of the camp. There was a photographic branch, and pictures of everything happening in the camp could be taken and sent to the High Command in Berlin.

[Pictures were then projected on the screen.]

M. DUBOST: This is the general view of the quarry. Is this where the internees worked?

BOIX: Most of them.

M. DUBOST: Where is the stairway?

BOIX: In the rear.

M. DUBOST: How many steps were there?

BOIX: 160 steps at first; later on there were 186.

M. DUBOST: We can proceed to the next picture.

BOIX: This was taken in the quarry during a visit from Reichsführer Himmler, Kaltenbrunner, the Governor of Linz, and some other leaders whose names I do not know. What you see below is the dead body of a man who had fallen from the top of the quarry (70 meters), as happened every day.

M. DUBOST: We can proceed to the next picture.

BOIX: This was taken in April 1941. My Spanish comrades who had sought refuge in France are pulling a wagon loaded with earth. That was the work we had to do.

M. DUBOST: By whom was this picture taken?

BOIX: At that time by Paul Ricken, a professor from Essen.

M. DUBOST: We may proceed to the next one.

BOIX: This staged the scene of an Austrian who had escaped. He was a carpenter in the garage and he managed to make a box, a box in which he could hide and so get out of the camp. But after a while he was recaptured. They put him on the wheelbarrow in which corpses were carried to the crematorium. There were some placards saying in German, “Alle Vögel sind schon da,” meaning “All the birds are back again.” He was sentenced and then paraded in front of 10,000 deportees to the music of a gypsy band playing a song “J’attendrai.” When he was hanged, his body swung to and fro in the wind while they played the very well known song, “Bill Black Polka.”

M. DUBOST: The next one.

BOIX: This is the scene; in this picture we see on the right and left all the deportees in a row; on the left are the Spaniards, they are smaller. The man in the front with the beret is a criminal from Berlin by the name of Schultz, who was employed on these occasions. In the background you can see the man who is about to be hanged.

M. DUBOST: Next one. Who took these pictures?

BOIX: By the SS Oberscharführer Fritz Kornatz. He was killed by American troops in Holland in 1944. This man, a Russian prisoner of war, got a bullet in the head. They hanged him to make us think he was a suicide and had tried to hurl himself against the barbed wire.

The other picture shows some Dutch Jews. That was taken at Barracks C, the so-called quarantine barracks. The Jews were driven to hurl themselves against the barbed wire on the very day of their arrival because they realized that there was no hope to escape for them.

M. DUBOST: By whom were these pictures taken?

BOIX: At this time by the SS Oberscharführer Paul Ricken, a professor from Essen.

M. DUBOST: Next one.

BOIX: These are 2 Dutch Jews. You can see the red star they wore. That was an alleged attempt to escape (Fluchtversuch).

M. DUBOST: What was it in reality?

BOIX: The SS sent them to pick up stones near the barbed wires, and the SS guards at the second barbed wire fence fired on them, because they received a reward for every man they shot down.

The other picture shows a Jew in 1941 during the construction of the so-called Russian camp, which later became the sanitary camp, hanged with the cord which he used to keep up his trousers.

M. DUBOST: Was it suicide?

BOIX: It was alleged to be. It was a man who no longer had any hope of escape. He was driven to desperation by forced labor and torture.

M. DUBOST: What is this picture?

BOIX: A Jew whose nationality I do not know. He was put in a barrel of water until he could not stand it any longer. He was beaten to the point of death and then given 10 minutes in which to hang himself. He used his own belt to do it, for he knew what would happen to him otherwise.

M. DUBOST: Who took that picture?

BOIX: The SS Oberscharführer Paul Ricken.

M. DUBOST: And what is this picture?

BOIX: Here you see the Viennese police visiting the quarry. This was in June or July 1941. The two deportees whom you see here are two of my Spanish comrades.

M. DUBOST: What are they doing?

BOIX: They are showing the police how they had to raise the stones, because there were no other appliances for doing so.

M. DUBOST: Did you know any of the policemen who came?

BOIX: No, because they came only once. We had just time to have a look at them.

The date of this picture is September 1943, on the birthday of Obersturmbannführer Franz Ziereis. He is surrounded by the whole staff of Mauthausen Camp. I can give you the names of all the people in the picture.

M. DUBOST: Pass the next photo.

BOIX: This is a picture taken on the same day as Obersturmbannführer Franz Ziereis’s birthday. The other man was his adjutant. I forgot his name. It must be remembered that this adjutant was a member of the Wehrmacht and put on an SS uniform as soon as he came to the camp.

M. DUBOST: Who is that?

BOIX: That is the same visit to Mauthausen by police officials in June or July 1941. This is the kitchen door. The prisoners standing there had been sent to the disciplinary company. They used that little appliance on their backs for carrying stones up to a weight of 80 kilos, until they were exhausted. Very few men ever came back from the disciplinary company.

This picture shows Himmler’s visit to the Führerheim at Camp Mauthausen in April 1941. It shows Himmler with the Governor of Linz in the background and Obersturmbannführer Ziereis, the commanding officer of Camp Mauthausen, on his left.

This picture was taken in the quarry. In the rear, to the left, you see a group of deportees at work. In the foreground are Franz Ziereis, Himmler, and Obergruppenführer Kaltenbrunner. He is wearing the gold Party emblem.

M. DUBOST: This picture was taken in the quarry? By whom?

BOIX: By the SS Oberscharführer Paul Ricken. This was between April and May 1941. This gentleman frequently visited the camp at that period to see how similar camps could be organized throughout Germany and in the occupied countries.

M. DUBOST: I have finished. You give us your assurance that it is really Kaltenbrunner.

BOIX: I give you my assurance.

M. DUBOST: And that this picture was taken in the camp?

BOIX: I give you my assurance.

M. DUBOST: Were you taken to Mauthausen as a prisoner of war or as a political prisoner?

BOIX: As a prisoner of war.

M. DUBOST: You had fought as a volunteer in the French Army?

BOIX: Either in infantry battalions or in the Foreign Legion, or in the pioneer regiments attached to the Army to which I belonged. I was in the Vosges with the 5th Army. We were taken prisoners. We retreated as far as Belfort where I was taken prisoner in the night of 20-21 June 1940. I was put with some fellow Spaniards and transferred to Mulhouse. Knowing us to be former Spanish Republicans and anti-fascists, they put us in among the Jews as members of a lower order of humanity (Untermensch). We were prisoners of war for 6 months and then we learned that the Minister for Foreign Affairs had had an interview with Hitler to discuss the question of foreigners and other matters. We knew that our status had been among the questions raised. We heard that the Germans had asked what was to be done with Spanish prisoners of war who had served in the French Army, those of them who were Republicans and ex-members of the Republican Army. The answer . . .

M. DUBOST: Never mind that. So although you were a prisoner of war you were sent to a camp not under Army control?

BOIX: Exactly. We were prisoners of war. We were told that we were being transferred to a subordinate Kommando, like all the other Frenchmen. Then we were transferred to Mauthausen where, for the first time, we saw that there were no Wehrmacht soldiers and we realized that we were in an extermination camp.

M. DUBOST: How many of you arrived there?

BOIX: At the end we were 1,500; altogether 8,000 Spaniards at the time of our arrival.

M. DUBOST: How many of you were liberated?

BOIX: Approximately 1,600.

M. DUBOST: I have no more questions to ask.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you want to ask any questions?

GEN. RUDENKO: I shall have some questions. If the President will permit me I shall present them in tomorrow’s session.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.

[The Tribunal adjourned until 29 January 1946 at 1000 hours.]

FORTY-FIFTH DAY Tuesday, 29 January 1946

Morning Session

MARSHAL: May it please the Court, I desire now to say that the Defendant Kaltenbrunner will be absent from this morning’s session on account of illness.

M. DUBOST: In my capacity as representative of the French Prosecution, I wish to ask the Tribunal to consider this request. The witnesses that were interrogated yesterday are to be cross-examined by the Defense. The conditions under which they are here are rather precarious, for it takes 30 hours to return to Paris. We would like to know whether we are to keep them here; and, if the Defense really intends to cross-examine them, we should like to proceed with that as quickly as possible in order to ensure their return to France.

THE PRESIDENT: In view of what you said yesterday, M. Dubost, I said on behalf of the Tribunal that Herr Babel might have the opportunity of cross-examining one of your witnesses within the next two days. Is Herr Babel ready to cross-examine that witness now?

HERR BABEL: No, Mr. President, I have not yet received a copy of his interrogation and consequently have not been able to prepare my cross-examination. The time from yesterday to today is, naturally, also too short. Therefore, I cannot yet make a definite statement whether or not I shall want to cross-examine the witness. If I were given an opportunity during the course of the day to get the Record. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: [Interposing] Well, that witness must stay until tomorrow afternoon, M. Dubost, but the other witnesses can go. M. Dubost, will you see, if you can, that a copy of the shorthand notes is furnished to Herr Babel as soon as possible?

M. DUBOST: Yes, Mr. President.

[The witness, Boix, took the stand.]

I shall have it done, My Lord. We continue. The Tribunal will remember that yesterday afternoon we projected six photographs of Mauthausen which were brought to us by the witness who is now before you and on which he offered his comments. This witness specifically stated under what conditions the photograph representing Kaltenbrunner in the quarry of Mauthausen had been taken. We offer these photographs as a French document, Exhibit Number RF-332.

Will you allow me to formulate one more question to the witness? Then I shall be through with him, at least concerning the important part of this testimony.

Witness, do you recognize among the defendants anyone who visited the camp of Mauthausen during your internment there?

BOIX: Speer.

M. DUBOST: When did you see him?

BOIX: He came to the Gusen Camp in 1943 to arrange for some constructions and also to the quarry at Mauthausen. I did not see him myself as I was in the identification service of the camp and could not leave, but during these visits Paul Ricken, head of the identification department, took a roll of film with his Leica which I developed. On this film I recognized Speer and some leaders of the SS as well, who came with him. Speer wore a light-colored suit.

M. DUBOST: You saw that on the pictures that you developed?

BOIX: Yes. I recognized him on the photos and afterward we had to write his name and the date because many SS always wanted to have collections of all the photos of visits to the camp.

I recognized Speer on 36 photographs which were taken by SS Oberscharführer Paul Ricken in 1943, during Speer’s visit to the Gusen Camp and the quarry of Mauthausen. He always looked extremely pleased in these pictures. There are even pictures which show him congratulating Obersturmbannführer Franz Ziereis, then commander of the Mauthausen Camp, with a cordial handshake.

M. DUBOST: One last question. Were there any officiating chaplains in your camp? How did the internees who wanted religious consolation die?

BOIX: Yes, from what I could observe, there were several. There was an order of German Catholics, known as “Bibelforscher,” but officially . . .

M. DUBOST: But officially did the administration of the camp grant the internees the right to practice their religion?

BOIX: No, they could do nothing, they were absolutely forbidden even to live.

M. DUBOST: Even to live?

BOIX: Even to live.

M. DUBOST: Were there any Catholic chaplains or any Protestant pastors?

BOIX: That sort of Bibelforscher were almost all Protestants. I do not know much about this matter.

M. DUBOST: How were monks, priests, and pastors treated?

BOIX: There was no difference between them and ourselves. They died in the same way we did. Sometimes they were sent to the gas chamber, at times they were shot, or plunged in freezing water; any way was good enough. The SS had a particularly harsh method of handling these people, because they knew that they were not able to work as normal laborers. They treated all intellectuals of all countries in this manner.

M. DUBOST: They were not allowed to exercise their functions?

BOIX: No, not at all.

M. DUBOST: Did the men who died have a chaplain before being executed?

BOIX: No, not at all. On the contrary, at times, instead of being consoled, as you say, by anyone of their faith, they received, just before being shot, 25 or 75 lash with a leather thong even from an SS Obersturmbannführer personally. I noticed especially the cases of a few officers, political commissars, and Russian prisoners of war.

M. DUBOST: I have no further questions to ask of the witness.

THE PRESIDENT: General Rudenko?

GEN. RUDENKO: Witness, please tell us what you know about the extermination of Soviet prisoners.

BOIX: I cannot possibly tell you all I know about it; I know so much that one month would not suffice to tell you all about it.

GEN. RUDENKO: Then I would like to ask you, Witness, to tell us concisely what you know about the extermination of Soviet prisoners in the camp of Mauthausen.

BOIX: The arrival of the first prisoners of war took place in 1941. The arrival of 2,000 Russian prisoners of war was announced. With regard to Russian prisoners of war, they took the same precautions as in the case of the Republican Spanish prisoners of war. They put machine guns everywhere around the barracks and expected the worst. As soon as the Russian prisoners of war entered the camp one could see that they were in a very bad state, they could not even understand anything. They were human scarecrows. They were then put in barracks, 1,600 to a barracks. You must bear in mind these barracks were 7 meters wide by 50 long. They were divested of their clothes, of the very little they had with them; they could keep only one pair of drawers and one shirt. One has to remember that this was in November and in Mauthausen it was more than 10 degrees (centigrade) below zero.

Upon their arrival there were already 20 deaths, from walking only the distance of 4 kilometers between the station and camp of Mauthausen. At first the same system was applied to them as to us Republican Spanish prisoners. They left us with nothing to do, with no work.

They were left to themselves, but with scarcely anything to eat. At the end of a few weeks they were already at the end of their endurance. Then began the process of elimination. They were made to work under the most horrible conditions, they were beaten, hit, kicked, insulted; and out of the 7,000 Russian prisoners of war who came from almost everywhere, only 30 survivors were left at the end of three months. Of these 30 survivors photographs were taken by Paul Ricken’s department as a document. I have these pictures and I can show them if the Tribunal so wishes.

GEN. RUDENKO: You do have these pictures?

BOIX: M. Dubost knows about that, yes. M. Dubost has them.

GEN. RUDENKO: Thank you. Can you show these pictures?

BOIX: M. Dubost has them.

GEN. RUDENKO: Thank you. What do you know about the Yugoslavs and the Poles?

BOIX: The first Poles came to the camp in 1939 at the moment of the defeat of Poland. They received the same treatment as everybody else did. At that time there were only ordinary German bandits there. Then the work of extermination was begun. There were tens of thousands of Poles who died under frightful conditions.

The position of the Yugoslavs should be emphasized. The Yugoslavs began to arrive in convoys, wearing civilian clothes; and they were shot in a legal way, so to speak. The SS wore even their steel helmets for these executions. They shot them two at a time. The first transport brought 165, the second 180, and after that they came in small groups of 15, 50, 60, 30; and even women came then.

It should be noted that once, among four women who were shot—and that was the only time in the camp of deportees—some of them spat in the face of the camp Führer before dying. The Yugoslavs suffered as few people have suffered. Their position is comparable only to that of the Russians. Until the very end they were massacred by every means imaginable. I would like to say more about the Russians, because they have gone through so much . . .

GEN. RUDENKO: Do I understand correctly from your testimony that the concentration camp was really an extermination camp?

BOIX: The camp was placed in the last category, category 3; that is, it was a camp from which no one could come out.

GEN. RUDENKO: I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Does Counsel for Great Britain desire to cross-examine?

COLONEL H. J. PHILLIMORE (Junior Counsel for United Kingdom): No questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the United States?

MR. THOMAS J. DODD (Executive Trial Counsel for the United States): No questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Do any counsel for the defendants wish to cross-examine?

HERR BABEL: Witness, how were you marked in the camp?

BOIX: The number? What kind of brand?

HERR BABEL: The prisoners were marked by variously colored stars, red, green, yellow, and so forth. Was this so in Mauthausen also? What did you wear?

BOIX: Everybody wore insignia. They were not stars; they were triangles and letters to show the nationality. Yellow and red stars were for the Jews, stars with six red and yellow points, two triangles, one over the other.

HERR BABEL: What color did you wear?

BOIX: A blue triangle with an “S” in it, that is to say “Spanish political refugee.”

HERR BABEL: Were you a Kapo?

BOIX: No, I was an interpreter at first.

HERR BABEL: What were your tasks and duties there?

BOIX: I had to translate into Spanish all the barbaric things the Germans wished to tell the Spanish prisoners. Afterwards my work was with photography, developing the films which were taken all over the camp showing the full story of what happened in the camp.

HERR BABEL: What was the policy with regard to visitors? Did visitors go only into the inner camp or to places where work was being done?

BOIX: They visited all the camps. It was impossible for them not to know what was going on. Exception was made only when high officials or other important persons from Poland, Austria, or Slovakia, from all these countries, would come. Then they would show them only the best parts. Franz Ziereis would say, “See for yourselves.” He searched out cooks, interned bandits, fat and well-fed criminals. He would select these so as to be able to say that all internees looked like these.

HERR BABEL: Were the prisoners forbidden to communicate with each other concerning conditions in the camp? Communication with the outside was, of course, scarcely possible.

BOIX: It was so completely forbidden that, if anyone was caught at it, it meant not only his death but for all those of his nationality terrible reprisals.

HERR BABEL: What observations can you make regarding the Kapos? How did they behave toward your fellow internees?

BOIX: At times they were really worthy of being SS themselves. To be a Kapo, one had to be Aryan, pure Aryan. That means that they had a martial bearing and, like the SS, full rights over us; they had the right to treat us like beasts. The SS gave them carte blanche to do with us what they wished. That is why, at the liberation, the prisoners and deportees executed all the Kapos on whom they could lay their hands.

Shortly before the liberation the Kapos asked to enlist voluntarily in the SS and they left with the SS because they knew what was awaiting them. In spite of that we looked for them everywhere and executed them on the spot.

HERR BABEL: You said “they had to treat you like wild beasts.” From what facts do you draw the conclusion that they were obliged to?

BOIX: One would have to be blind in order not to see. One could see the way they behaved. It was better to die like a man than to live like a beast; but they preferred to live like beasts, like savages, like criminals. They were known as such. I lived there four and a half years and I know very well what they did. There were many among us who could have become Kapos for their work, because they were specialists in some field or another in the camp. But they preferred to be beaten and massacred, if necessary, rather than become a Kapo.

HERR BABEL: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Does any other member of the defendants’ counsel wish to ask questions of the witness? M. Dubost, do you wish to ask any questions?

M. DUBOST: I have no further questions, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

GEN. RUDENKO: My Lord, the witness informed us that he had at his disposal the photographic documents of 30 Soviet prisoners of war, the sole survivors of several thousand internees in this camp. I would like to ask your permission, Mr. President, to present this photographic document to the witness so that he can confirm before the Tribunal that it is really this group of Soviet prisoners of war.

THE PRESIDENT: Certainly you may show the photograph to the witness if it is available.

GEN. RUDENKO: Yes. Witness, can you show this picture?

[The witness presented the picture to the Tribunal.]

THE PRESIDENT: Is this the photograph?

BOIX: Yes, I can assure you that these 30 survivors were still living in 1942. Since then, in view of the conditions of the camp, it is very difficult to know whether some of them are still alive.

THE PRESIDENT: Would you please give the date when this photograph was taken?

BOIX: It was at the end of the winter of 1941-42. At that time, it was still 10 degrees (centigrade) below zero. You can see from the picture the appearance of the prisoners because of the cold.

THE PRESIDENT: Has this book been put in evidence yet?

M. DUBOST: This book has been submitted as evidence, Your Honor, as official evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: Have the defendants got copies of it?

M. DUBOST: It was submitted as Exhibit Number RF-331 (Document F-321). The Defense have also received a copy of this book in German, but the pictures are not in the German version, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: Well then, let this photograph be marked. It had better be marked with a French exhibit number, I think. What will it be?

M. DUBOST: We shall give it Exhibit Number RF-333.

THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked in that way, and then hand it to Herr Babel.

GEN. RUDENKO: Thank you, Sir. I have no more questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you hand the photo to Dr. Babel.

[The photo was handed to Herr Babel.]

I think it should be handed about to the other defendants’ counsel in case they wish to ask any question about it. M. Dubost, I think that an approved copy of this book, including the photographs, has been deposited in the defendants’ Information Center.

M. DUBOST: The whole book, except for the pictures.

THE PRESIDENT: Why not the pictures?

M. DUBOST: At that moment we did not have them to submit. In our exposé we have not mentioned the photographs.

THE PRESIDENT: The German counsel ought to have the same documents as are submitted to the Tribunal. The photographs have been submitted to the Tribunal; therefore they should have been deposited in the Information Center.

M. DUBOST: Mr. President, the French text, including the pictures, was deposited in the Defense Information Center; and, in addition, a certain number of texts in German, to which the pictures were not added because we had that translation prepared for the use of the Defense. But there are French copies of the book that you have before you which include the pictures.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

M. DUBOST: We have here four copies of the picture which was shown yesterday afternoon, which we shall place before you. It shows Kaltenbrunner and Himmler in the quarry of Mauthausen, in accordance with the testimony given by Boix. One of these pictures will also be delivered to the Defense, that is, to the lawyer of the Defendant Kaltenbrunner.

THE PRESIDENT: Now the photograph has been handed around to the defendants’ counsel. Do any members of the defendants’ counsel wish to ask any questions of the witness about this photograph? No question? The witness can retire.

BOIX: I would like to say something more. I would like to note that there were cases when Soviet officers were massacred. It is worth noting because it concerns prisoners of war. I would like the Tribunal to listen to me carefully.

THE PRESIDENT: What is it you wish to say about the massacre of the Soviet prisoners of war?

BOIX: In 1943 there was a transport of officers. On the very day of their arrival in the camp they began to be massacred by every means. But it seems that from the higher quarters orders had come concerning these officers saying that something extraordinary had to be done. So they put them in the best block in the camp. They gave them new prisoner’s clothing. They gave them even cigarettes; they gave them beds with sheets; they were given everything they wanted to eat. A medical officer, Sturmbannführer Bresbach, examined them with a stethoscope.

They went down into the quarry, but they carried only small stones, and in fours. At that time Oberscharführer Paul Ricken, chief of the service, was there with his Leica taking pictures without stopping. He took about 48 pictures. These I developed and five copies of each, 13 by 18, with the negatives, were sent to Berlin. It is too bad I did not steal the negatives, as I did the others.

When that was done, the Russians were made to give up their clothing and everything else and were sent to the gas chamber. The comedy was ended. Everybody could see on the pictures that the Russian prisoners of war, the officers, and especially the political commissars, were treated well, worked hardly at all, and were in good condition. That is one thing that should be noted because I think it is necessary.

And another thing, there was a barrack called Barrack Number 20. That barrack was inside the camp; and in spite of the electrified barbed wire around the camp, there was an additional wall with electrified barbed wire around it. In that barrack there were prisoners of war, Russian officers and commissars, some Slavs, a few Frenchmen, and, they said, even a few Englishmen. No one could enter that barrack except the two Führer who were in the camp prison, the commanding officers of the inner and outer camps. These internees were dressed just as we were, like convicts, but without number or identification of their nationality. One could not tell their nationality.

The service “Erkennungsdienst” must have taken their pictures. A tag with a number was placed on their chest. This number began with 3,000 and something. There were numbers looking like Number 11 (two blue darts), and the numbers started at 3,000 and went up to 7,000. SS Unterscharführer Hermann Schinlauer was the photographer then in charge. He was from the Berlin region, somewhere outside of Berlin, I do not remember the name. He had orders to develop the films and to do all work personally; but like all the SS of the interior services of the camp, they were men who knew nothing. They always needed prisoners to get their work done. That is why he needed me to develop these films. I made the enlargements, 5 by 7. These were sent to Obersturmführer Karl Schulz, of Cologne, the Chief of the Politische Abteilung. He told me not to tell anything to anybody about these pictures and about the fact that we developed these films; if we did we would be liquidated at once. Without any fear of the consequences I told all my comrades about it, so that, if one of us should succeed in getting out, he could tell the world about it.

THE PRESIDENT: I think we have heard enough of this detail that you are giving us. But come back for a moment to the case you were speaking of. I wish you would repeat the case of the Russian prisoners of war in 1943. You said that the officers were taken to the quarry to carry the heaviest stones.

BOIX: No, just very small stones, weighing not even 20 kilos, and they carried them in fours to show on the pictures that the Russian officers did not do heavy work but on the contrary, light work. That was only for the pictures, whereas in reality it was entirely different.

THE PRESIDENT: I thought you said they carried big, heavy stones.

BOIX: No.

THE PRESIDENT: Were the photographs taken while they were in their uniforms carrying these light stones?

BOIX: Yes, Sir; they had to put on clean uniforms, neatly arranged, to show that the Russian prisoners were well and properly treated.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Is there any other particular incident you want to refer to?

BOIX: Yes, about Block 20. Thanks to my knowledge of photography I was able to see it; I had to be there to handle the lights while my chief took photographs. In this way I could follow, detail by detail, everything that took place in this barrack. It was an inner camp. This barrack, like all the others, was 7 meters wide and 50 meters long. There were 1,800 internees there, with a food ration less than one-quarter of what we would get for food. They had neither spoons nor plates. Large kettles of spoiled food were emptied on the snow and left there until it began to freeze; then the Russians were ordered to get at it. The Russians were so hungry, they would fight for this food. The SS used these fights as a pretext to beat some of them with bludgeons.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean that the Russians were put directly into Block 20?

BOIX: The Russians did not come to the camp directly. Those who were not sent to the gas chamber right away were placed in Block 20. Nobody of the inner camp, not even the Blockführer, was allowed to enter this barrack. Small convoys of 50 or 60 came several times a week and always one heard the noise of a fight going on inside.

In January 1945, when the Russians learned that the Soviet Armies were approaching Yugoslavia, they took one last chance. They seized fire extinguishers and killed soldiers posted under the watch tower. They seized machine guns and everything possible as weapons. They took blankets with them and everything they could find. They were 700, but only 62 succeeded in passing into Yugoslavia with the partisans.

That day, Franz Ziereis, camp commander, issued an order by radio to all civilians to co-operate, to “liquidate” the Russian criminals who had escaped from the concentration camp. He stated that everyone who could produce evidence that he had killed one of these men would receive an extraordinary sum of marks. This was why all the Nazi followers in Mauthausen went to work and succeeded in killing more than 600 escaped prisoners. It was not hard because some of the Russians could not drag themselves for more than 10 meters.

After the liberation one of the surviving Russians came to Mauthausen to see how everything was then. He told us all the details of his painful march.

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think the Tribunal wants to hear more details which you did not see yourself. Does any member of the Defense Counsel wish to ask any question of the witness upon the points which he has dealt with himself.

HERR BABEL: One question only. In the course of your testimony you gave certain figures, namely 165, then 180, and just now 700. Were you in a position to count them yourself?

BOIX: Nearly always the convoys came into the camp in columns of five. It was easy to count them. These transports were always sent from the Wehrmacht, from the Wehrmacht prisons somewhere in Germany. They were sent from all prisons in Germany, from the Wehrmacht, the Luftwaffe, the SD, or the SS.

THE PRESIDENT: Just answer the question and do not make a speech. You have said they were brought in in columns of five and it was easy to count them.

BOIX: Very easy to count them, particularly for those who wanted to be able to tell the story some day.

HERR BABEL: Did you have so much time that you were able to observe all these things?

BOIX: The transports always came in the evening after the deportees had returned to the camp. At this time we always had two or three hours when we could wander about in the camp waiting for the bell that was the signal for us to go to bed.

THE PRESIDENT: The witness may now retire.

[The witness left the stand.]

M. DUBOST: If the Tribunal permits, we shall now hear Mr. Cappelen, who is a Norwegian witness. The testimony of Mr. Cappelen will be limited to the conditions that were imposed on Norwegian internees in Norwegian camps and prisons.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

[The witness, Hans Cappelen, took the stand.]

THE PRESIDENT: I understand that you speak English.

M. HANS CAPPELEN (Witness): Yes, I speak English.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you take the English form of oath?

CAPPELEN: Yes, I prefer to speak in English.

THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?

CAPPELEN: My name is Hans Cappelen.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me:

I swear that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

[The witness repeated the oath in English.]

THE PRESIDENT: [To the witness.] Raise your right hand and say “I swear.”

CAPPELEN: I swear.

M. DUBOST: M. Cappelen, you were born 18 December 1903?

CAPPELEN: Yes.

M. DUBOST: In what town?

CAPPELEN: I was born in Kvitseid, province of Telemark, Norway.

M. DUBOST: What is your profession?

CAPPELEN: I was a lawyer, but now I am a business man.

M. DUBOST: Will you tell what you know of the atrocities of the Gestapo in Norway?

CAPPELEN: My Lord, I was arrested on 29 November 1941 and taken to the Gestapo prison in Oslo, Moellergata 19. After 10 days I was interrogated by two Norwegian NS, or Nazi police agents. They started in at once to beat me with bludgeons. How long this interrogation lasted I cannot remember, but it led to nothing. So after some days I was brought to 32 Victoria Terrace. That was the headquarters of the Gestapo in Norway. It was about 8 o’clock at night. I was brought into a fairly big room and they asked me to undress. I had to undress until I was absolutely naked. I was a little bit swollen after the first treatment I had by the Norwegian police agents, but it was not too bad.

There were present about six or eight Gestapo agents and their leader was Femer; Kriminalrat was his title. He was very angry and they started to bombard me with questions which I could not answer. So Femer ran at me and tore all the hair off my head, hair and blood were all over the floor around me. And so, all of a sudden, they all started to run at me and beat me with rubber bludgeons and iron cable-ends. That hurt me very badly and I fainted. But I was brought back to life again by their pouring ice water over me. I vomited, naturally, because I was feeling very sick. But that only made them angry; and they said, “Clean up, you dirty dog!” And I had to make an attempt to clean up with my bare hands.

In this way they carried on for a long, long time, but the interrogation led to nothing because they bombarded me with questions and asked me of persons whom I did not know or scarcely knew.

I suppose it must have been in the morning I was brought back again to the prison. I was placed in my cell and felt very sick and weak. All during the day I asked the guard if I could not have a doctor; that was the 19th. After some days—I suppose it must have been the day before Christmas Eve 1941—I was again, in the night, brought to the Victoria Terrace. The same happened as last time, only this time it was very easy for me to undress because I had only a coat on me. I was swollen up from the last beating. Just like the last time, six, seven, or eight Gestapo agents were present.

THE PRESIDENT: German Gestapo, do you mean?

CAPPELEN: Yes, German Gestapo, all of them. And then there was Femer present at that time, too. He had a rank in the SS and was criminal commissar. Then they started to beat me again, but it was useless to beat a man like me who was so swollen up and looking so bad. Then they started in another way, they started to screw and break my arms and legs. And my right arm was dislocated. I felt that awful pain, and fainted again. Then the same happened as last time; they poured water on me and I came back again to life.

Now all the Germans there were absolutely mad. They roared like animals and bombarded me with questions again, but I was so tired I could not answer.

Then they placed a sort of home-made—it looked to me like a sort of home-made—wooden thing, with a screw arrangement, on my left leg; and they started to screw so that all the flesh loosened from the bones. I felt an awful pain and fainted away again. But I came back to consciousness again; and I have still big marks here on my leg from the screw arrangement, now, four years afterwards.

So that led to nothing and then they placed something on my neck—I still have marks here [indicating]—and loosened the flesh here. But then I had a collapse and all of a sudden I felt that I was sort of paralyzed in the right side. It has otherwise been proved that I had a cerebral hemorrhage. And I got that double vision; I saw two of each Gestapo agent, and all was going round and round for me. That double vision I have had 4 years, and when I am tired it comes back again. But I am better now, so I can move again on the right side; but the right side is a little bit affected from that.

Well, I cannot remember much more from that night, but the other prisoners who had to clean up the corridors in the prison had seen them bringing me back again in the morning. That must have been about 6 o’clock in the morning. They thought I was dead because I had no irons on my hands. If it had been for 1 day or 2 days, I can’t tell, but one day I moved again and was a little bit clear; and then the guard at once was in my cell where I was lying on a cot in my own vomiting and blood, and afterwards there came a doctor.

He had, I suppose, quite a high rank; which rank I can’t exactly say. He told me that I most probably would die, especially if I wasn’t—I asked him, “Couldn’t you bring me to a hospital, because . . .” He said, “No. Fools are not to be brought to any hospital, before you do just what we say you shall do. Like all Norwegians, you are a fool.”

Well, they put my arm into joint again. That was very bad, but two soldiers held me and they drew it in, and I fainted away again. So the time passed and I rested a bit. I couldn’t walk, because it all seemed to be going around for me. So I was lying on the cot. And so one day—it must have been in the end of February or in the middle of February 1942—they came again. It must have been about ten o’clock in the night, because the light in my cell had been out for quite a long time. They asked me to stand up, and I made an attempt, and fell down again because of the paralysis. Then they kicked me; but I said, “Is not it better to put me to death, because I can’t move?”

Well, they dragged me out of the cell, and I was again brought up to Victoria Terrace; that is the headquarters where they made their interrogations. This time the interrogation was led by one SS man called Stehr. I could not stand so, naked as I was, I was lying on the floor. This Stehr had some assistants, four or five Gestapo agents; and they started to tramp on me and to kick me. So all of a sudden they brought me to my feet again and brought me to a table where Stehr was sitting. He took my left hand like this [indicating] and put some pins under my nails and started to break them up. Well, it hurt me badly; and all things began going around and around for me—the double vision—but the pain was so intense that I drew my hand back. I should not have done that, because that made them absolutely furious. I fainted away, collapsed, and I do not know for how long a time; but I came back to life again by the smelling of burned flesh or burned meat. And then one of the Gestapo agents was standing with a little sort of lamp burning me under my feet. It did not hurt me too much, because I was so feeble that I did not care; and I was so paralyzed my tongue could not work, so I could not speak, only groaned a bit, crying, naturally, always.

Well, I don’t remember much more of that time, but this was to me one of the worst things I went through with respect to interrogations. I was brought back again to the prison and time passed and I attempted to eat a little bit. I spewed most of it up again, I threw it up again, most of it. But little by little I recovered. I was still paralyzed in the side, so I couldn’t stand up.

But I was also taken into interrogations again, and then I was confronted with other Norwegians, people I knew and people I did not know; and the most of them were badly treated. They were swollen up, and I remember especially two of my friends, two very good persons. I had been confronted with them, and they were looking very bad from torture, and when I came back again after my imprisonment I learned that they both were dead; they had died from the treatment.

Another incident which I aim to tell—I hope My Lord will permit me to do it—concerned a person called Sverre Emil Halvorsen. He was one day—that must have been in the autumn or in August or October 1943—a little bit swollen up and very unhappy; and he said they had treated him so bad, but he and some of his friends had been in some sort of a court where they had been told that they were to be shot the next day. They placed a sort of sentence upon them, just to set an example.

Well, Halvorsen had, naturally, a headache and felt very ill, and I asked the guard to bring—the head guard, that was a person named Herr Götz. He came and asked what the devil I wanted. I said, “My comrade is very ill, could not he have some aspirins?” “Oh no,” he said, “it is a waste to give him aspirin, because he is to be shot in the morning.”

Next morning he was brought out of the cell, and after the war they found him up at Trondheim together with other Norwegians in a grave there with a bullet through his neck.

Well, the Moellergate 19, in Oslo, the prison where I was for about 25 months, was a house of horror. I heard every night—nearly every night—people screaming and groaning. One day, it must have been in December 1943, about the 8th of December, they came into my cell and told me to dress. It was in the night. I put on my ragged clothes, what I had. Now I had recovered, practically. I was naturally lame on the one side, could not walk so well, but I could walk; and I went down in the corridor and there they placed me as usual against the wall, and I waited that they would bring me away and shoot me. But they did not shoot me; they brought me to Germany together with lots of other Norwegians. I learned afterwards about some few of my friends—and by friends, I mean Norwegians. We were so-called “Nacht und Nebel” prisoners, “Night and Mist” prisoners. We were brought to a camp called Natzweiler, in Alsace. It was a very bad camp, I must say.

We had to work to take stones out of the mountains. But I shall not bore you about my tales from Natzweiler, My Lord, I will only say that people of all other nations—French, Russians, Dutch, and Belgians—were there and we are about five hundred Norwegians who have been there. Between 60 and 70 percent died there or in other camps of concentration. Also, two Danes were there.

Well, we saw many cruel things there, so cruel that they need—they are well known. The camp had to be evacuated in September 1944. We were then brought to Dachau near Munich, but we did not stay long there; at least, I didn’t stay long there. I was sent to a Kommando called Aurich in East Friesland, where we were about—that was an under-Kommando of Neuengamme, near Hamburg. We were about fifteen hundred prisoners. We had to dig tank traps. Well, we had to walk every day about 3 or 4 hours, and go by train for 1 hour to the Panzer Gräben where we worked. The work was so strong and so hard and the way they treated us so bad, that most of them died there. I suppose about half of the prisoners died of dysentery or of ill-treatment in the five or six weeks we were there. It was too much even for the SS, who had to take care of the camp, so they gave it up, I suppose; and I was sent from Neuengamme, near Hamburg, to a camp called Gross-Rosen, in Silesia; it is near Breslau. That was a very bad camp, too. We were about 40 Norwegians there; and of those 40 Norwegians we were about 10 left after 4 to 5 weeks.

THE PRESIDENT: You will be some little time longer, so I think we better adjourn now for 10 minutes.

[A recess was taken.]

M. DUBOST: M. Cappelen, will you continue to speak to us of your passage through those camps, particularly of what you know of the camp of Natzweiler and the role at Natzweiler of Dr. Hirt, Hirch, or Hirtz of the German medical faculty of Strasbourg?

CAPPELEN: Well, in Natzweiler, yes, there were also carried on experiments. Just beside the camp there was a farm they called Struthof. That was practically a part of the camp; and some of the prisoners had to work there to clean up the rooms; and—well not so often, but sometimes—they were taken out. For instance, one day, I remember, all the Gypsies were taken out, and then they were brought down to Struthof. They were very afraid of being brought down there.

Well, one friend of mine, a Norwegian called Hvidding, who had a job in the hospital—so-called hospital—in the camp, told me the day after the Gypsies were taken and brought to Struthof, “I tell you something. They have, so far as I understand, tried some sort of gas on them.”

“How do you know that?” I asked.

“Well, come along with me.”

And then, through the window of the hospital, I could see four of the Gypsies lying in beds. They did not look well, and it was not easy to look through the glass, but they had some mucus, I suppose, around their mouths. And he told me that they had—Hvidding told me—that the Gypsies could not tell much because they were so ill, but so far as he understood, it was gas which they had used upon them. There had been 12 of them, and 4 were living; the other 8, so far as he understood, died down there at Struthof. Then he told further on, “You see that man who sometimes walks through the camp together with some others?”

“Well, I have seen him,” I said.

“That is Professor Hirtz from the German University in Strasbourg.”

I am quite sure Hvidding said that this man is Hirt or Hirtz. He is coming here now nearly daily with a so-called commission to see those who are coming back again from Struthof, to see the result. That is all I know about that so far.

M. DUBOST: How many Norwegians died at Gross-Rosen?

CAPPELEN: In Gross-Rosen, it is not possible for me to say here exactly; but I know about 40 persons who had been there, and I also know about ten who came back again. Well, Gross-Rosen was a bad camp. But nearly the worst of it all was the evacuation of Gross-Rosen. I suppose it must have been in the middle of February of that year. The Russians came nearer and nearer to Breslau.

THE PRESIDENT: You mean 1945?

CAPPELEN: Yes, 1945 I mean. One day we were placed upon a so-called “Appellplatz” (roll call ground). We were very feeble, all of us. We had hard work, little food, and all sorts of ill-treatment. Well, we started to walk in parties of about 2,000 to 3,000. In the party I was with, we were about 2,500 to 2,800. We heard so and so many when they took up the numbers.

Well, we started to walk, and we had SS guards on each side. They were very nervous and almost like mad persons. Several were drunk. We couldn’t walk fast enough, and they smashed in the heads of five who could not keep up. They said in German, “That is what happens to those who cannot walk.” The others would have been treated in the same way if they had not been able to follow. We walked the best we could. We attempted to help one another, but we were all too exhausted. After walking for 6 to 8 hours we came to a station, a railway station. It was very cold and we had only striped prison clothes on, and bad boots; but we said, “Oh, we are glad that we have come to a railway station. It is better to stand in a cow truck than to walk, in the middle of winter.” It was very cold, 10 to 12 degrees below zero (centigrade). It was a long train with open cars. In Norway we call them sand cars, and we were kicked on to those cars, about 80 on each car. We had to sit together and on this car we sat for about 5 days without food, cold, and without water. When it was snowing we made like this [indicating] just to get some water into the mouth and, after a long, long time—it seemed to me years—we came to a place which I afterwards learned was Dora. That is in the neighborhood of Buchenwald.

Well, we arrived there. They kicked us down from the cars, but many were dead. The man who sat next to me was dead, but I had no right to get away. I had to sit with a dead man for the last day. I didn’t see the figures myself, naturally, but about one-third of us or half of us were dead, getting stiff. And they told us that one-third—I heard the figure afterwards in Dora—that the dead on our train numbered 1,447.

Well, from Dora I don’t remember so much, because I was more or less dead. I have always been a man of good humor and high spirited, to help myself first and my friends; but I had nearly given up.

I do not remember so much before, so I had a good chance, because Bernadotte’s action came and we were rescued and brought to Neuengamme, near Hamburg; and when we arrived, there were some of my old friends, the student from Norway who had been deported to Germany, other prisoners who came from Sachsenhausen and other camps, and the few, comparatively few, Norwegian “NN” prisoners who were living, all in very bad condition. Many of my friends are still in the hospital in Norway. Some died after coming home.

That’s what happened to me and my comrades in the three and three-quarter years I was in prison. I am fully aware that it is impossible for me to give details more than I have done; but I have taken, so to say, the parts of it which show, I hope, the way they behaved against Norwegians, and in Norway, the German SS.

M. DUBOST: For what reason were you arrested?

CAPPELEN: I was arrested the 29th of November 1941, in a place called then Hoistly. That is a sort of sanitarium where one goes skiing.

M. DUBOST: What had you done? What was held against you?

CAPPELEN: Well, what I had done. Like most of us Norwegians, we regarded ourselves to be at war with Germany in one way or another; and naturally we, most of us, were against them by feelings; and also, as the Gestapo asked me, I remember, “What do you think of Mr. Quisling?” I only answered, “What would you have done if a German officer—even a major—when your country was at war and your government had given an order of mobilization, he came and said, ‘Better forget the Mobilization Order?’” A man can’t do that with respect.

M. DUBOST: On the whole, did the German population know of, or were they unaware of, what went on in the camps?

CAPPELEN: That is, naturally, very difficult for me to answer. But in Norway, at least, even at the time when I was arrested, we knew quite a lot about how the Germans treated their prisoners.

And there is one thing I remember in Munich where I was working. I was not working; I was in Dachau for that short period. With some others, I was once brought to the town of Munich to go into the ruins to seek for persons and find bombs and things like that. I suppose that was the idea. They never told us anything, but we knew what was on. We were about one hundred persons, prisoners. We were looking like dead persons, all of us looking very bad. We went through the streets and people could see us; and they also could see what we were going to do, the sort of work which one should think was very dangerous and which should in some way help them; but it was no fun for them to see us. Some of them were hollering to us, “It is your fault that we are bombed.”

M. DUBOST: Were there any chaplains in your camp? Were you allowed to pray?

CAPPELEN: Well, we had among the “NN” prisoners in Natzweiler a priest from Norway. He was, I suppose, what you call in English a Dean. He was of quite high rank. In Norwegian we call it “Prost.” From the west coast of Norway. He was also brought to Natzweiler as an “NN” prisoner, and some of my comrades asked him if they could not meet sometimes so he could preach to them. But he said, “No, I don’t dare to do it. I had a Bible. They have taken it from me and they joked about it and said, ‘You dirty churchman, if you show the Bible and things like that . . .’” You know, therefore, we did not do anything in that way.

M. DUBOST: Those who were dying among you, did they have the consolation of their religion at the time of their death?

CAPPELEN: No.

M. DUBOST: Were the dead treated with decency?

CAPPELEN: No.

M. DUBOST: Was there any religious service conducted?

CAPPELEN: No.

M. DUBOST: I have no further questions to ask.

THE PRESIDENT: Does counsel for the U.S.S.R. desire to cross-examine?

GEN. RUDENKO: I have no question, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Has the United States?

[No response.]

Then does any member of the defendants’ counsel wish to ask the witness any questions?

DR. MERKEL: Witness, at your first interrogations which as a rule took place about ten days after arrest, were you interrogated by German or by Norwegian Gestapo men?

CAPPELEN: It was made by two Norwegians who belonged to, as I learned afterward, the so-called State Police. That was not the police in Norway. They were working together with the Gestapo; in fact, it was the same. But it was by them I was interrogated after the 10 days. But they, as I heard afterwards, usually did it in that way, because it was easy to do it in Norwegian; and some of the Germans could not speak Norwegian. Most of them could not. I think it was, therefore, that they took the Norwegian; and you can call them Gestapo, practically. They let them handle the persons first.

DR. MERKEL: Then at the Victoria Terrace, which name I believe you used to designate the Gestapo headquarters in Oslo, were there Norwegian or German officials present during your interrogation?

CAPPELEN: I dare say there may have been one Norwegian as a sort of interpreter; but as I spoke the German language, I cannot, with 100 percent surety, say if there were one or two Norwegian policemen there. It is difficult. But as Victoria Terrace was the headquarters of the Gestapo, naturally they had some Norwegian Nazis to help them there. But most of them were German.

DR. MERKEL: Were the persons who interrogated you in uniform or in civilian clothes?

CAPPELEN: During my interrogation I have sometimes seen them in uniform, too. But when they tortured me they were mostly in civilian clothes. So far as I remember, there was only one person in uniform during one of the torture interrogations.

DR. MERKEL: You stated that you were then treated by a physician. Did this physician come of his own free will or was he asked to come?

CAPPELEN: The first time I asked for a doctor, but then I did not get any. But at the time when I came back to consciousness, when I was supposed perhaps to be dead, the guard possibly had been looking at me because he was then running away; and afterwards they came with a doctor.

DR. MERKEL: Did you know that in the German concentration camps there was an absolute prohibition against talking about the conditions in the camp—among the prisoners as well as to outsiders, of course—and that any violation of the order not to talk was subject to most severe penalties?

CAPPELEN: Well, in the camps it was like this: It was naturally more or less understood that it was more or less forbidden to talk about the tortures we had gone through; but naturally in the camps, the Nacht und Nebel Camps where I was, the situation was so bad that even torture sometimes seemed to be better than dying slowly away like that, so almost the only thing we spoke about was: “When shall the war end; how to help our comrades; and are we to get some food tonight or not?”

DR. MERKEL: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Does any other defendant’s counsel wish to ask any questions? Mr. Dubost, have you anything you wish to ask?

M. DUBOST: I have nothing further to ask, Mr. President. I thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness can retire.

[The witness left the stand.]

M. DUBOST: If the Tribunal will permit, we will now hear a witness, Roser, who will give a few details on the conditions under which they kept French prisoners of war in reprisal camps.

[The witness, Paul Roser, took the stand.]

THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?

M. PAUL ROSER (Witness): Roser, Paul.

THE PRESIDENT: You swear to speak without hate or fear, to state the truth, all the truth, only the truth? Raise the right hand and say “I swear.”

[The witness raised his right hand and repeated the oath in French.]

THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.

M. DUBOST: Your name is Paul Roser, R-o-s-e-r?

ROSER: R-o-s-e-r.

M. DUBOST: You were born on the 8th of May 1903? You are of French nationality?

ROSER: I am French.

M. DUBOST: You were born of French parents?

ROSER: I was born of French parents.

M. DUBOST: You were a prisoner of war?

ROSER: Yes.

M. DUBOST: You were taken prisoner in battle?

ROSER: Yes, I was.

M. DUBOST: In what year?

ROSER: 14 June 1940.

M. DUBOST: You sought to escape?

ROSER: Yes, several times.

M. DUBOST: How many times?

ROSER: Five times.

M. DUBOST: Five times. You were transferred finally to a disciplinary camp?

ROSER: Yes.

M. DUBOST: Will you indicate the regime of such a camp? Will you indicate your rank, and the treatment which French people of your rank in those disciplinary camps had to submit to, and for what reasons?

ROSER: Very well, I was an “aspirant,” a rank which, in France, is between a first sergeant and a second lieutenant. I was in several disciplinary camps. The first was a small camp which the Germans called Strafkommando, in Linzburg in Hanover. It was in 1941. There were about thirty of us.

While I was in that camp during the summer of 1941, we attempted to escape. We were recaptured by our guards at the very moment when we were leaving the camp. We were naturally unarmed. The Germans, our guards, having recaptured one of us, attempted to make him reveal the others who also had sought to escape. The man remained silent. The guards hurled themselves upon him, beating him with the butts of their pistols in the face, with bayonets, with the butts of their rifles. At that moment, not wishing to let our comrade be killed, several of us stepped forward and revealed that we sought to escape. I then received a beating with bayonets applied to my head and fell into a swoon. When I recovered consciousness one of the Germans was kneeling on my leg and was continuing to strike me. Another one, raising his gun, was seeking to strike my head. I was saved on that occasion through the intervention of my comrades, who threw themselves between the Germans and myself. That night we were beaten for exactly 3 hours with rifle butts, with bayonet blows, and with pistol butts in the face. I lost consciousness three times.

The following day we were taken to work, nevertheless. We dug trenches for the draining of the marshes. It was a very hard sort of work, which started at 6:30 in the morning, to be completed at 6 o’clock at night. We had two stops, each of a half-hour. We had nothing to eat during the day. Soup was given to us, when we came back at night, with a piece of bread, a small sausage or 2 cubic centimeters of margarine, and that was all.

Following our attempted escape, our guards held back from us all the parcels which our families sent to us for a month. We could not write nor could we receive mail.

At the end of three and a half months, in September 1941, we were shipped to the regular Kommandos. I, personally, was quite ill at that time and I came back to Stalag X B at Sandbostel.

M. DUBOST: Why were you subjected to such a special regime, although you were an “aspirant”?

ROSER: Certainly because of my attempted escape.

M. DUBOST: Had you agreed to work?

ROSER: No, not at all. Like all my comrades of the same rank and like most of the noncommissioned officers and like all “aspirants,” I had refused to work, invoking the provision of the Geneva Convention, which Germany had signed and which prescribed that noncommissioned officers who were prisoners cannot be forced to perform any labor without their consent. The German Army, into whose hands we had fallen, practically speaking, never respected that agreement undertaken by Germany.

M. DUBOST: Are you familiar with executions that took place in Oflag XI B?

ROSER: I was made familiar with the death of several French or Allied prisoners, specifically at Oflag XI at Grossborn in Pomerania. A French prisoner, Lieutenant Robin, who with some of his comrades had prepared an escape and for that purpose had dug a tunnel, was killed in the following manner: The Germans having had information that the tunnel had been prepared, Hauptmann Buchmann, who was a member of the officer staff of the camp, watched with a few German guards for the exit of the would-be escapees. Lieutenant Robin, who was first to emerge, was killed with one shot while obviously he could in no manner attack anyone or defend himself.

Other cases of this type occurred. One of my friends, a French Lieutenant Ledoux, who was sent to Graudenz Fortress where he was subjected to a hard detention regime, saw his best friend, British Lieutenant Anthony Thomson, killed by Hauptfeldwebel Ostreich with one pistol shot in the neck, in their own cell. Lieutenant Thomson had just sought to escape and had been recaptured by the Germans on the airfield. Lieutenant Thomson belonged to the RAF.

I should like to state also that in the camp of Rawa-Ruska in Galicia, where I spent 5 months, several of our comrades . . .

M. DUBOST: Would you tell us why you were at Rawa-Ruska?

ROSER: In the course of the winter, 1941-42, the Germans wanted to intimidate, first, the noncommissioned officers who were refractory in labor; second, those who had sought to escape; and third, the men who were being employed in Kommandos (labor gangs) and who were caught in the act of performing sabotage. The Germans warned us that from 1 April 1942 onward all these escapees who were recaptured would be sent to a camp, a special camp called a Straflager, at Rawa-Ruska in Poland.

It was following another attempt to escape that I was taken to Poland with about two thousand other Frenchmen. I was at Limburg-an-der-Lahn, Stalag XII A, where we were regrouped and placed in railway cars. We were stripped of our clothes, of our shoes, of all the food which some of us had been able to keep. We were placed in cars, in each of which the number varied from 53 to 56. The trip lasted 6 days. The cars were open generally for a few minutes in the course of a stop in the countryside. In 6 days we were given soup on 2 occasions only, once at Oppel, and another time at Jaroslan, and the soup was not edible. We remained for 36 hours without anything to drink in the course of that trip, as we had no receptacle with us and it was impossible to get a supply of water.

When we reached Rawa-Ruska on 1 June 1942, we found other prisoners—most of them French, who had been there for several weeks—extremely discouraged, with a ration scale much inferior to anything that we had experienced until then, and no International Red Cross or family parcel for anyone.

At that time there were about twelve to thirteen thousand in that camp. There was for that number one single faucet which supplied, for several hours a day, undrinkable water. This situation lasted until the visit of two Swiss doctors, who came to the camp in September, I think. The billets consisted of 4 barracks, where rooms contained as many as 600 men. We were stacked in tiers along the walls, 3 rows of them, 30 to 40 centimeters for each of us.

During our stay in Rawa-Ruska there were many attempts at escape, more than five hundred in 6 months. Several of our comrades were killed. Some were killed at the time when a guard noticed them. In spite of the sadness of such occurrences, no one of us contested the rights of our guards in such cases, but several were murdered. In particular, on 12 August 1942, in the Tarnopol Kommando, a soldier, Lavesque, was found bearing evidence of several shots and several large wounds caused by bayonets.

On the 14th of August, in the Verciniec Kommando, 93 Frenchmen, having succeeded in digging a tunnel, escaped. The following morning three of them, Conan, Van den Boosch, and Poutrelle, were caught by German soldiers, who were searching for them. Two of them were sleeping; the third, Poutrelle, was not asleep. The Germans, a corporal and two enlisted men, verified the identity of the three Frenchmen. Very calmly they told them: “Now we are obliged to kill you.” The three wretched men spoke of their families, begged for mercy. The German corporal gave the following reply, which we heard only too often: “Befehl ist Befehl” (“An order is an order”); and they shot down immediately two of the French prisoners, Van den Boosch and Conan. Poutrelle was left like a madman and by sheer luck was not caught again. But he was captured a few days later in the region of Kraków. He was then brought back to Rawa-Ruska proper, where we saw him in a condition close to madness.

On the 14th of August, once again in the Stryj Kommando, a team of about twenty prisoners accompanied by several guards, were on their way to work . . . .

M. DUBOST: Excuse me, you are talking about French prisoners of war?

ROSER: Yes, French prisoners of war, so far.

Going along a wood, the German noncommissioned officer, who for some time had been annoying two of them, Pierrel and Ondiviella, directed them into the woods. A few moments later the others heard shots. Pierrel and Ondiviella had just been killed.

On 20 September 1942, at Stryj once again, a Kommando was at work under the supervision of German soldiers and German civilian foremen. One of the Frenchmen succeeded in escaping. Without waiting, the German noncommissioned officers selected two men, if my memory is correct, Saladin and Duboeuf, and shot them on the spot. Incidents of this type occurred in other circumstances. The list of them would be long indeed.

M. DUBOST: Can you speak of the conditions under which the refractory noncommissioned officers who were with you at camp at Rawa-Ruska lived?

ROSER: The noncommissioned officers who refused to work were grouped together in one section of the camp, in two of the large stables which served as billets. They were subjected to a regime of most severe repression; frequent roll calls for assembly; lying-down and standing-up exercise which after a while leaves one quite exhausted.

One day, Sergeant Corbihan, having refused Captain Fournier—a German captain with a French name—to take a tool to work with, the German captain made a motion and one of the German soldiers with him ran Corbihan through with his bayonet; Corbihan by miracle escaped death.

M. DUBOST: How many of you disappeared?

ROSER: At Rawa-Ruska, in the 5 months that I spent there, we buried 60 of our comrades who had died from disease or had been killed in attempted escapes. But so far, 100 of those who were with us and sought to escape have not been found.

M. DUBOST: Is this all that you have witnessed?

ROSER: No, I should say that our stay at the punishment camp, Rawa-Ruska, involved one thing more awful than anything else we prisoners saw and suffered. We were horrified by what we knew was taking place all about us. The Germans had transformed the area of Lvov-Rawa-Ruska into a kind of immense ghetto. Into that area, where the Jews were already quite numerous, had been brought the Jews from all the countries of Europe. Every day for 5 months, except for an interruption of about six weeks in August and September 1942, we saw passing about 150 meters from our camp, one, two, and sometimes three convoys, made up of freight cars in which there were crowded men, women and children. One day a voice coming from one of these cars shouted: “I am from Paris. We are on our way to the slaughter.” Quite frequently, comrades who went outside the camp to go to work found corpses along the railway track. We knew in a vague sort of way at that time that these trains stopped at Belcec, which was located about 17 kilometers from our camp; and at that point they executed these wretched people, by what means I do not know.

One night in July 1942 we heard shots of submachine guns throughout the entire night and the moans of women and children. The following morning bands of German soldiers were going through the fields of rye on the very edge of our camp, their bayonets pointed downward, seeking people hiding in the fields. Those of our comrades who went out that day to go to their work told us that they saw corpses everywhere in the town, in the gutters, in the barns, in the houses. Later some of our guards, who had participated in this operation, quite good-humoredly explained to us that 2,000 Jews had been killed that night under the pretext that two SS men had been murdered in the region.

Later on, in 1943, during the first week of June, there occurred a pogrom which in Lvov caused the death of 30,000 Jews. I was not personally in Lvov, but several French military doctors, Major Guiguet and Lieutenant Levin of the French Medical Corps, described this scene to me.

THE PRESIDENT: The witness appears to be not finishing and therefore I think we had better adjourn now until 2 o’clock.

[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]

Afternoon Session

MARSHAL: I desire to announce that the Defendant Kaltenbrunner will be absent from this afternoon’s session on account of illness.

M. DUBOST: With the permission of the Tribunal, we shall continue examining the witness, M. Roser.

M. Roser, this morning you finished the description of the conditions under which you witnessed the pogrom of Rawa-Ruska and you wanted to give us some details on another pogrom. You told us that a German soldier, who had taken a part in it, made a statement to you which you wanted to relate to us. Is that right?

ROSER: Yes.

M. DUBOST: We are listening to you.

ROSER: At the end of 1942 I was taken to Germany, and I, together with a French doctor, had the opportunity of meeting the chauffeur of the German physician who was head of the infirmary where I was at that time. This soldier, whose name I have forgotten, said to me as follows:

“In Poland, in a town the name of which I have forgotten, a sergeant from our regiment went with a Jewess. A few hours later he was found dead. Then”—said the German soldier—“my battalion was called out. Half of it cordoned off the ghetto, and the other half, two companies, to one of which I belonged, forced its way into the houses and threw out of the windows, pell-mell, the furniture and the inhabitants.”—The German soldier finished his story by saying—“Poor fellow! It was terrible, horrible!”—We asked him then—“How could you do such a thing?”—He gave us the fatalistic reply—“Orders are orders.”

This is the example which I previously mentioned.

M. DUBOST: If I remember rightly, when speaking of Rawa-Ruska you started describing the treatment of Russian prisoners who were in this camp before you.

ROSER: Yes. That is correct. The first French batch, which arrived in Rawa-Ruska the 14th or 15th of April 1942, followed a group of 400 Russian prisoners of war, who were the survivors of a detachment of 6,000 men decimated by typhus. The few medicines found by the French doctors upon arrival at Rawa-Ruska came from the infirmary of the Russian prisoners. There were a few aspirin tablets and other drugs; absolutely nothing against typhus. The camp had not been disinfected after the sick Russians had left.

I cannot speak here of these wretched Russian survivors of Rawa-Ruska, without asking the Tribunal for permission to describe the terrible picture we all—I mean all the French prisoners who were in the stalags of Germany in the autumn or winter of 1941—saw when the first batches of Russian prisoners arrived. It was on a Sunday afternoon that I watched this spectacle, which was like a nightmare. The Russians arrived in rows, five by five, holding each other by the arms, as none of them could walk by themselves—“walking skeletons” was really the only fitting expression. Since then we have seen photographs of those camps of deportation and death. Our unfortunate Russian comrades had been in that condition since 1941. The color of their faces was not even yellow, it was green. Almost all squinted, as they had not strength enough to focus their sight. They fell by rows, five men at a time. The Germans rushed on them and beat them with rifle butts and whips. As it was Sunday afternoon the prisoners were at liberty, inside the camp, of course. Seeing that, all the French started shouting and the Germans made us return to the barracks. Typhus spread immediately in the Russian camp, where, out of the 10,000 who had arrived in November, only 2,500 survived by the beginning of February.

These figures are accurate. I have them from two sources. First, from a semi-official source, which was the kitchen of the camp. In front of the kitchen a big chart was posted where the Germans recorded the ridiculously small rations and the number of men in the camp. This number decreased daily by 80 to 100, in the Russian camp. On the other hand, French comrades employed in the camp’s reception office, called “Aufnahme,” also knew the figures, and from them I got the figure of 2,500 survivors in February. Later, particularly at Rawa-Ruska, I had the opportunity of seeing French prisoners from all parts of Germany. All those who were in stalags, that is, in the central camps, at the time mentioned, saw the same thing. Many of the Russian prisoners were thrown in a common grave, even before they were dead. The dead and the dying were piled up between the barracks and thrown into carts. The first few days we could see the corpses in the carts, but as the German camp commandant did not like to see French soldiers salute their fallen Russian comrades, he had them covered with canvas after that.

M. DUBOST: Were your camps guarded by the German Army or by the SS?

ROSER: By the Wehrmacht.

M. DUBOST: Only by the German Army?

ROSER: I was never guarded by anybody but the German Army and once by the Schutzpolizei, after I had tried to escape.

M. DUBOST: And were you recaptured?

ROSER: Yes.

M. DUBOST: One last question. You were kept in a number of prisoner-of-war camps in Germany, were you not?

ROSER: Yes.

M. DUBOST: In all those camps did you have the opportunity to practice your religion?

ROSER: In the camps . . .

M. DUBOST: What is your religion?

ROSER: I am a Protestant. In the camps where I was kept, Protestants and Catholics were generally allowed to practice their religion. But I was detailed to working squads, particularly to an agricultural group in the Bremen district, called “Maiburg,” I think, where there was a Catholic priest. There were about sixty of us in this group. This Catholic priest could not say Mass—they would not let him.

M. DUBOST: Who?

ROSER: The sentries—the “Posten.”

M. DUBOST: Who were soldiers of the German Army?

ROSER: Yes, always.

M. DUBOST: I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Does the British Prosecutor wish to ask any questions?

BRITISH PROSECUTOR: No.

THE PRESIDENT: Or the United States?

AMERICAN PROSECUTOR: No.

THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the Defense Counsel wish to ask any questions?

DR. NELTE: Witness, when were you taken prisoner?

ROSER: I was taken prisoner on 14 June 1940.

DR. NELTE: In which camp for prisoners of war were you put?

ROSER: I was immediately sent to the Oflag, XI D, at Grossborn-Westfalenhof in Pomerania.

DR. NELTE: Oflag?

ROSER: Yes.

DR. NELTE: What regulations were made known to you in the prisoner-of-war camp regarding a possible attempt at escape?

ROSER: We were warned that we would be shot at and that we should not try to escape.

DR. NELTE: Do you think that this warning was in agreement with the Geneva Convention?

ROSER: This one certainly.

DR. NELTE: You mentioned, if I heard correctly, the case of Robin from Oflag XI D. You said that there was an officer who dug a tunnel in order to escape from the camp, and that as he was the first to emerge from the tunnel, he was shot. Is that right?

ROSER: Yes; I said so.

DR. NELTE: Were you with those officers who tried to escape?

ROSER: I said before that this was related to me by Lieutenant Ledoux who was still in Oflag XI D when that happened.

DR. NELTE: I only wanted to ascertain that this officer, Robin, met his death while trying to escape.

ROSER: Yes, but here I should like to mention one thing, namely, all the prisoners of war who escaped knew they risked their lives. Everyone attempting to escape, knew that he risked a bullet. But it is one thing to be killed trying to climb the barbed wire, for instance, and it is another thing to be ambushed and murdered at a moment when one cannot do anything, when one is unarmed and at the mercy of somebody, as was the case with Lieutenant Robin. He was in a low tunnel, flat on his stomach, crawling along, and was killed. That was not in accordance with international rules.

DR. NELTE: I see what you mean, and you may rest assured that I respect every prisoner of war who tried to do his duty as a patriot. In this case, however, which you did not witness, I wanted to make the point that this courageous officer who left the tunnel might not have answered when challenged by the guards and was therefore shot.

ROSER: No.

DR. NELTE: Though you have just given a vivid description of the incident, I think it was a product of your imagination because, according to your own testimony, you did not see it yourself; is that correct?

ROSER: There are not 36 different ways of getting out of an escape tunnel: You lie flat on your stomach, you crawl, and if you are killed before you get out of the tunnel, I call that murder.

DR. NELTE: And then you saw the officer . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, we do not want argument in cross-examination. The witness has already stated that he was not there and did not see it, and he has explained the facts.

DR. NELTE: Thank you. The incident in respect to Lieutenant Thomson is not quite clear to me. In this case too, I believe you said you had no direct knowledge, but were informed by a friend. Is that correct?

ROSER: I cannot but repeat what I said before. I related the story of the French lieutenant, Ledoux, who told me that he was in the fortress of Graudenz together with an R.A.F. lieutenant called Anthony Thomson. This English officer escaped from the fortress. He was recaptured on the airfield, taken back to the fortress, put into the same cell as Lieutenant Ledoux, and Ledoux saw him killed by a revolver shot in the back of the neck. Ledoux gave me the name of the murderer. I think I mentioned him just now, Hauptfeldwebel Ostereich. This is the story told me by an eyewitness.

DR. NELTE: Was that Hauptfeldwebel Ostereich a guard at the camp, or to what formation did he belong?

ROSER: I don’t know.

DR. NELTE: Do you know that you, as prisoner of war, had a right to complain?

ROSER: Certainly; I personally knew the Geneva Convention which was signed by Germany in 1934.

DR. NELTE: Knowing those regulations you also knew, did you not, that you could complain to the camp commander? Did you avail yourself of that?

ROSER: I tried to do so, but without success.

DR. NELTE: May I ask you for the name of the camp commander who refused to hear you?

ROSER: I do not know the name, but I will tell you when I tried to complain. It was when I was in the infamous Linzburg Strafkommando (punishment squad) in the province of Hanover. This squad belonged to Stalag XC. In the morning following the night I have just described, when, after an unsuccessful attempt at escape, we were beaten for 3 hours running, some of us were kept in the barracks. We then saw the immediate superior of the commander of the squad. It was an Oberleutnant, whose name I do not know, who saw that we were injured, particularly about the head, and he considered it quite all right. In the afternoon we went to work. When we returned at 7 o’clock we had the visit of a major, a very distinguished-looking man, who also thought that, as we had tried to escape, it was quite in order that we should be punished. As to our complaint, it went no further.

DR. NELTE: Did you know that the German Government had made an agreement with the Vichy Government regarding prisoners of war?

ROSER: Yes, I have heard of that, but they did not inspect squads of this kind.

DR. NELTE: You mean to say that only the camps were inspected, but not the labor squads?

ROSER: There were inspections of the labor squads, but not of the punishment squads where I was. That is the difference.

DR. NELTE: You were not always in a disciplinary squad, were you?

ROSER: No.

DR. NELTE: When were you put in a disciplinary squad?

ROSER: In April 1941, for the first time. It was a squad to which only officer cadets and priests were sent without any obvious reasons. This was the Linzburg Strafkommando squad which did not receive any visits. At Rawa-Ruska we received the visit of two Swiss doctors; I think it was in September 1942.

DR. NELTE: In September 1942?

ROSER: Yes, in September 1942.

DR. NELTE: Did you complain to the Swiss doctors?

ROSER: Not I personally, but our spokesman was able to talk to them.

DR. NELTE: And were there any results?

ROSER: Yes, certainly.

DR. NELTE: Do you not think that a complaint made through the camp commander would likewise have been successful, if you had wished to resort to it?

ROSER: We were not on very friendly terms with the German staff at Rawa-Ruska.

DR. NELTE: I do not quite understand you.

ROSER: I said we were not on friendly terms with the German commander of the Rawa-Ruska Camp.

DR. NELTE: It is not a question of good terms, but of a complaint which could be made in an official manner. Do you not think so?

[The witness shrugged his shoulders.]

DR. NELTE: When did you leave Rawa-Ruska?

ROSER: At the end of October 1942.

DR. NELTE: If I remember rightly, you mentioned the number of victims counted or observed by you, did you not?

ROSER: Yes.

DR. NELTE: How many victims were there?

ROSER: It was a figure given to me by Dr. Lievin, a French doctor at Rawa-Ruska. There were, as I said, about sixty deaths in the camp itself, to which approximately one hundred must be added who disappeared.

DR. NELTE: Are you speaking of French victims or victims in general?

ROSER: When I was at Rawa-Ruska there were only Frenchmen there, with a few Poles and a few Belgians.

DR. NELTE: I am putting this question because an official French report I have before me, dated 14 June 1945, states that the victims up to the end of July were 14 Frenchmen, and therefore for the period from August to September the number seems to me very high. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Does any other German counsel want to put any questions to this witness? [There was no response.] M. Dubost?

M. DUBOST: I have finished with this witness, Mr. President. If the Tribunal will permit me, I shall now call another witness, the last one.

THE PRESIDENT: One moment, M. Dubost, the witness can retire.

[The witness left the stand.]

M. Dubost, could you tell the Tribunal whether the witness you are about to call is going to give us any evidence of a different nature from the evidence which has already been given? Because you will remember that we have in the French document, of which we shall take judicial notice—a very large French document; I forget the number, 321 I believe it is, Document Number RF-321; we have a very large volume of evidence on the conditions in concentration camps. Is the witness you are going to call going to prove anything fresh?

M. DUBOST: Your Honors, the witness whom we are going to call is to testify to a certain number of experiments which he witnessed. He has even submitted certain documents.

THE PRESIDENT: Are these experiments about which the witness is going to speak all recorded, in the Document Number RF-321?

M. DUBOST: They are referred to, but not reported in detail. Moreover, in view of the importance attached to statements of witnesses in the French presentation concerning the camps, I shall considerably curtail my work and will dispense with reading the documentary evidence, a large amount of which I shall merely submit after these witnesses have been heard.

THE PRESIDENT: You may call the witness, but try not to let him be too long.

M. DUBOST: I shall do my best, Mr. President.

[The witness, Dr. Alfred Balachowsky, took the stand.]

THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?

DR. ALFRED BALACHOWSKY (Witness): Alfred Balachowsky.

THE PRESIDENT: Are you French?

BALACHOWSKY: French.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you take this oath? Do you swear to speak without hate or fear, to say the truth, all the truth, only the truth?

[The witness repeated the oath in French.]

Raise your right hand and swear.

BALACHOWSKY: I swear.

THE PRESIDENT: You may sit if you wish.

M. DUBOST: Your name is Balachowsky, Alfred B-a-l-a-c-h-o-w-s-k-y?

BALACHOWSKY: That is correct.

M. DUBOST: You are head of a laboratory at the Pasteur Institute in Paris?

BALACHOWSKY: That is correct.

M. DUBOST: Your residence is at Viroflay? You were born 15 August 1909 at Korotcha in Russia?

BALACHOWSKY: That is correct.

M. DUBOST: You are French?

BALACHOWSKY: Yes.

M. DUBOST: By birth?

BALACHOWSKY: Russian by birth, French by naturalization.

M. DUBOST: When were you naturalized?

BALACHOWSKY: 1932.

M. DUBOST: Were you deported on 16 January 1944 after being arrested on 2 July 1943, and were you 6 months in prison first at Fresnes, then at Compiègne? Were you then transferred to the Dora Camp?

BALACHOWSKY: That is correct.

M. DUBOST: Can you tell us rapidly what you know about the Dora Camp?

BALACHOWSKY: The Dora Camp is situated 5 kilometers north of the town of Nordhausen, in southern Germany. This camp was considered by the Germans as a secret detachment, a Geheimkommando, which prisoners who were kept there could never leave.

This secret detachment had as its task the manufacture of V-1’s and V-2’s—the “Vergeltungswaffen” (reprisal weapons)—the aerial torpedoes which the Germans launched on England. That is why Dora was a secret detachment. The camp was divided into two parts: one outer part contained one-third of the total number of persons in the camp, and the remaining two-thirds were concentrated in the underground factory. Dora, consequently, was an underground factory for the manufacture of V-1’s and V-2’s. I arrived at Dora on 10 February 1944, coming from Buchenwald.

M. DUBOST: Please speak more slowly. You arrived at Dora from Buchenwald on . . .?

BALACHOWSKY: On 10 February 1944, that is at a time when life in the Dora Camp was particularly hard.

On 10 February we were loaded, 76 men, onto a large German lorry. We were forced to crouch down, four SS guards occupying the seats at the front of the lorry. As we could not all crouch down, being too many, whenever a man raised his head he got a blow with a rifle butt, so that in the course of our 4-hour journey several of us were injured.

After our arrival at Dora, we spent a whole day and night without food, in the cold, in the snow, waiting for all the formalities of registration in the camp—completing forms, with names and surnames, and so on.

In comparison with Buchenwald, we found a considerable change at Dora, as the general management of the Dora Camp was entrusted to a special category of prisoners who were criminals. These criminals were our block leaders, served our soup, and looked after us. In contrast to the political prisoners who wore a red triangular badge, these criminals were distinguished by a green triangular badge on which was a black S. We called them the “S” men (Sicherheitsverband). They were people convicted of crimes by German courts long before the war, but who, instead of being sent home after having served their terms, were kept for life in concentration camps to supervise the other prisoners. Needless to say prisoners of that kind, these criminals with the green triangles, were asocial elements. Sometimes they had been 5, 10, even 20 years in prison, and afterwards, 5 or 10 years in concentration camps. These asocial outcasts no longer had any hope of ever getting out of the concentration camps. These criminals, however, thanks to the support and co-operation they were offered by the SS management of the camp, now had the chance of a career. This career consisted in stealing from and robbing the other prisoners, and obtaining from them the maximum output demanded by the SS. They beat us from morning till night. We got up at 4 o’clock in the morning and had to be ready within 5 minutes in the underground dormitories where we were crammed, without ventilation in foul air, in blocks about as large as this room, into which 3,000 to 3,500 internees were crowded. There were five tiers of bunks with rotting straw mattresses. Fresh ones were never issued. We were given 5 minutes in which to get up, for we went to bed completely dressed. We were hardly able to get any sleep, for there was a continuous coming and going, and all sorts of thefts took place among the prisoners. Furthermore, it was impossible to sleep because we were covered with lice; the whole Dora Camp swarmed with vermin. It was virtually impossible to get rid of the lice. In 5 minutes we had to be in line in the tunnel and march to a given place.

THE PRESIDENT: [To the witness] Just a minute, please. M. Dubost, you said you were going to call this witness upon experiments. He is now giving us all the details of camp life which we have already heard on several occasions.

M. DUBOST: So far nobody has spoken about the Dora Camp, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but every camp we have heard of has got the same sort of brutalities, hasn’t it, according to the witnesses who have been called?

You were going to call this witness because he was going to deal with experiments.

M. DUBOST: If the Tribunal is convinced that all the camps had the same regime, then my point has been proved and the witness will now testify to the experiments at the Buchenwald Camp. However, I wanted to show that all German camps were the same. I think this has now been proved.

THE PRESIDENT: If you were going to prove that, you would have to call a witness from every camp, and there are hundreds of them.

M. DUBOST: This question has to be proved because it is the uniformity of the system which establishes the culpability of these defendants. In every camp there was one responsible person who was the camp commander. But we are not trying the camp commander, but the defendants here in the dock and we are trying them for having conceived . . .

THE PRESIDENT: I have already pointed out to you that there has been practically no cross-examination, and I have asked you to confine this witness, as far as possible, to the question of experiments.

M. DUBOST: The witness will then confine himself to experiments at Buchenwald as this is the Tribunal’s wish. The Tribunal will consider the uniformity of treatment in all German internment camps as proved.

[Turning to the witness] Will you now testify to the criminal practices of the SS Medical Corps in the camps, criminal practices in the form of scientific experiments?

BALACHOWSKY: I was recalled to Buchenwald the 1st of May 1944, and assigned to Block 50, which was actually a factory for the manufacture of vaccines against exanthematous typhus. I was recalled from Dora to Buchenwald, because, in the meantime, the management of the camp had learned that I was a specialist in this sort of research, and consequently they wished to utilize my services in Block 50 for the manufacture of vaccines. However, I was unaware of it until the very last moment.

I came to Block 50 on the 1st of May 1944, and I stayed there until the liberation of the camp on the 11th of April 1945.

Block 50, which was the block where vaccines were manufactured, was under Sturmbannführer Schuler, who was a doctor with the rank of a Sturmbannführer, equal to SS major. He was in charge of the block and was responsible for the manufacture of the vaccines. This same Sturmbannführer Schuler was also in charge of another block in the Buchenwald Camp. This other block was Block 46, the infamous block for experiments, where the internees were utilized as guinea pigs.

Blocks 46 and 50 were both run by one office; it was the “Geschäftszimmer.” All archives, index cards pertaining to the experiments—as well as Block 50, were sent to the Geschäftszimmer, that is, to the office of Block 50.

The secretary of Block 50 was an Austrian political prisoner, my friend, Eugene Kogon. He and a few other comrades had, consequently, opportunities of looking through all the archives of which they had charge. Therefore they were able to know, day by day, exactly what went on either in Block 50, our block, or in Block 46. I myself was able to get hold of most of the archives of Block 46, and even the book in which the experiments were recorded has been saved. It is in our possession, and has been forwarded to the Psychological Service of the American Forces.

In this book all experiments are entered which were made in Block 46. Block 46 was established in October 1941 by a high commission subordinate to the medical service of the Waffen SS; and we see as members of its administrative council, a certain number of names, for this Block 46 came under the Research Section Number 5 (Versuchsabteilung Number 5 of Leipzig) of the Supreme Command of the Waffen SS. Inspector Mrugowski, Obergruppenführer of the Waffen SS, was in charge of this section. The administrative council which set up Block 46 was composed of the following members:

Dr. Genzken, Obergruppenführer (the highest rank in the Waffen SS); Dr. Poppendiek, Gruppenführer of the Waffen SS; and finally we see among these names also that of Dr. Handloser of the Wehrmacht and of the Military Academy of Berlin, who was also associated with the initiation of experiments on human beings.

Thus, in this administrative council there were members of the SS, and also Dr. Handloser. The experiments proper were carried out by Sturmbannführer Schuler, but all the orders and directives concerning the different types of experiments, which I shall speak about to you, were issued by Leipzig, that is, by the Research Section (Versuchsabteilung) of the Waffen SS. So there was no personal initiative on the part of Schuler or the management of the camp.

As to the experiments, all orders came directly from the Supreme Command in Berlin. Among these experiments, which we could follow step by step (at least some of them) through the cards, the results, the registration number of people admitted to and discharged from Block 46, were, first of all, numerous exanthematous typhus experiments; second, experiments on phosphorus burns; third, experiments on sexual hormones; fourth, experiments on starvation edema or avitaminosis; finally, fifth, I can tell you of experiments in the field of forensic medicine. So we have five different types of experiments.

M. DUBOST: Were the men who were subjected to these experiments volunteers or not?

BALACHOWSKY: The human beings subjected to experiments were recruited, not only in the Buchenwald Camp, but also outside the camp. They were not volunteers; in most cases they did not know that they would be used for experiments until they entered Block 46. The recruitment took place among criminals, perhaps in order to reduce their large numbers in that way. But the recruitment was also carried out among political prisoners and I have to point out that recruits for Block 46 came also from Russian prisoners of war. Among the political prisoners and prisoners of war who were used for experimental purposes at Block 46, the Russians were always in the majority, for the following reasons:

Of all the prisoners who could exist in concentration camps it was the Russians who had the greatest physical resistance, which was obviously superior to that of the French or other people of western Europe. They could withstand hunger and ill-treatment, and, generally speaking, showed physical resistance in every respect. For this particular reason, Russian political prisoners were recruited for experiments in greater numbers than others. However, there were people of other nationalities among them, particularly French. I should now like to deal with details of the experiments themselves.

M. DUBOST: Do not go too much into details, because we are not specialists. It will suffice us to know that these experiments were carried out without any regard to humanity and on nonvoluntary subjects. Will you please describe to us the atrocious character of these experiments and their results.

BALACHOWSKY: The experiments carried out in Block 46 did without doubt serve a medical purpose, but for the greater part they were of no service to science. Therefore, they can hardly be called experiments. The men were used for observing the effects of drugs, poisons, bacterial cultures, et cetera. I take, as an example, the use of vaccine against exanthematous typhus. To manufacture this vaccine it is necessary to have bacterial cultures of typhus. For experiments such as are carried out at the Pasteur Institute and the other similar institutes of the world, cultures are not necessary as typhus patients can always be found for samples of infected blood. Here it was quite different. From the records and the chart you have in hand, we could ascertain in Block 46 12 different cultures of typhus germs, designated by the letter BU, (meaning Buchenwald) and numbered Buchenwald 1 to Buchenwald 12. A constant supply of these cultures was kept in Block 46 by means of the contamination of healthy individuals through sick ones; this was achieved by artificial inoculation of typhus germs by means of intravenous injections of 0.5 to 1 cubic centimeter of infected blood drawn from a patient at the height of the crisis. Now, it is well-known that artificial inoculation of typhus by intravenous injection is invariably fatal. Therefore all these men who were used for bacterial culture during the whole time such cultures were required (from October 1942 to the liberation of the camp) died, and we counted 600 victims sacrificed for the sole purpose of supplying typhus germs.

M. DUBOST: They were literally murdered to keep typhus germs alive?

BALACHOWSKY: They were literally murdered to keep typhus germs alive. Apart from these, other experiments were made as to the efficacy of vaccines.

M. DUBOST: What is this document?

BALACHOWSKY: This document contains a record of the typhus cultures.

M. DUBOST: This document was taken by you from the camp?

BALACHOWSKY: Yes, I took this document from the camp, and its contents were summarized by me in the experiment book of Block 46.

M. DUBOST: Is this the document you handed to us?

BALACHOWSKY: We have actually made a more complete document—which is in the possession of the American Psychological Service—as we have the entire record, and this represents only one page of it.

M. DUBOST: I ask the Tribunal to take note that the French Prosecution submits this document, Document Number RF-334, as appendix to the testimony of Dr. Balachowsky.

BALACHOWSKY: [Continuing] In 1944, experiments were also made on the effects of vaccines. One hundred and fifty men lost their lives in these experiments. The vaccines used by the German Army were not only those manufactured in our Block 46, but also ones which came from Italy, Denmark, Poland, and the Germans wanted to ascertain the value of these different vaccines. Consequently, in August 1944 they began experiments on 150 men who were locked up in Block 46.

Here, I should like to tell you how this Block 46 was run. It was entirely isolated and surrounded by barbed wire. The internees had no roll call and no permission to go out. All the windows were kept closed, the panes were of frosted glass. No unauthorized person could enter the block. A German political prisoner was in charge of the Block. This German political prisoner was Kapo Dietzsch, an asocial individual who had been in prisons and in camps for 20 years and who worked for the SS. It was he who gave the injections and the inoculations and who executed people upon order. Strangely enough, there were weapons in the block, automatic pistols, and hand grenades, to quell any possible revolt, either outside or inside the block.

I can also tell you that an order slip for Block 46, sent to the office (Geschäftszimmer) at Block 50 in January 1945, mentioned three strait jackets to be used for those who refused to be inoculated.

Now I come back to the typhus and vaccine experiments. You will see how they were carried out.

The 150 prisoners were divided into 2 groups: those who were to be used as tests and those who were to be the subjects. The latter only received (ordinary) injections of the different types of vaccines to be tested. Those used for testing were not given any injections. Then, after the vaccination of the subjects, inoculations were given (always by means of intravenous injections) to everybody selected for this experiment, those for testing as well as the subjects. Those used for tests died about two weeks after the inoculation—as such is approximately the period required before the disease develops to its fatal issue. As for the others, who received different kinds of vaccines, their deaths were in proportion to the efficacy of the vaccines administered to them. Some vaccines had excellent results, with a very low death rate—such was the case with the Polish vaccines. Others, on the contrary, had a much higher death rate. After the conclusion of the experiments, no survivors were allowed to live, according to the custom prevailing in Block 46. All the survivors of the experiments were “liquidated” and murdered in Block 46, by the customary methods which some of my comrades have already described to you, that is by means of intracardiac injections of phenol. Intracardiac injections of 10 cubic centimeters of pure phenol was the usual method of extermination in Buchenwald.

THE PRESIDENT: We are not really concerned here with the proportion of the particular injections.

BALACHOWSKY: Will you repeat that please?

THE PRESIDENT: As I have said, we are not really concerned here with the proportions in which these injections were given, and will you kindly not deal with these details?

M. DUBOST: You might try and confine the witness.

BALACHOWSKY: [Continuing] Then I will speak of other details which may interest you. They are experiments of a psychotherapeutic nature, utilization of chemical products to cure typhus, in Block 46, under the same conditions as before. German industries co-operated in these experiments, notably the I. G. Farben Industrie which supplied a certain number of drugs to be used for experiments in Block 46. Among the professors who supplied the drugs, knowing that they would be used in Block 46 for experimental purposes, was Professor Lautenschläger of Frankfurt. So much for the question of typhus.

I now come to experiments with phosphorus, particularly made on prisoners of Russian origin. Phosphorus burns were inflicted in Block 46 on Russian prisoners for the following reason. Certain bombs dropped in Germany by the Allied aviators caused burns on the civilians and soldiers which were difficult to heal. Consequently, the Germans tried to find a whole series of drugs which would hasten the healing of the wounds caused by these burns. Thus, experiments were carried out in Block 46 on Russian prisoners who were artificially burned with phosphorus products and then treated with different drugs supplied by the German chemical industry.

Now as to experiments on sexual hormones . . .

M. DUBOST: What were the results of these experiments?

BALACHOWSKY: All these experiments resulted in death.

M. DUBOST: Always in death? So each experiment is equivalent to a murder for which the SS are collectively responsible?

BALACHOWSKY: For which those who established this institution are responsible.

M. DUBOST: That is the SS as a whole, and the German medical corps in particular?

BALACHOWSKY: Definitely so, as the orders came from the Versuchsabteilung 5 (Research Section 5). The SS were responsible as the orders were issued by that section at Leipzig and, therefore, came from the Supreme Command of the Waffen SS.

M. DUBOST: Thank you. What were the results of the experiments made on sexual hormones?

BALACHOWSKY: They were less serious. Besides, these were ridiculous experiments from the scientific point of view. There were, at Buchenwald, a number of homosexuals, that is to say, men who had been convicted by German tribunals for this vice. These homosexuals were sent to concentration camps, especially to Buchenwald, and were mixed with the other prisoners.

M. DUBOST: Especially with the so-called political prisoners, who in reality were patriots?

BALACHOWSKY: With all kinds of prisoners.

M. DUBOST: All were in the company of these German inverts?

BALACHOWSKY: Yes. They wore a pink triangle to distinguish them.

M. DUBOST: Was the wearing of this triangle a well-established custom, or on the contrary, was there much confusion in classification?

BALACHOWSKY: At the very first, before my arrival, from what I heard, order was kept with respect to triangular badges; but when I arrived at Buchenwald, in January of 1944, there was the greatest confusion in the badges, and many prisoners wore no badge at all.

M. DUBOST: Or did they wear badges of a category different from their own?

BALACHOWSKY: Yes, this was the case with many Frenchmen, who were sent to Buchenwald because they were ordinary criminals and who finally wore the red triangle of political prisoners.

M. DUBOST: What was the color of the triangle worn by the ordinary German criminals?

BALACHOWSKY: They had a green triangle.

M. DUBOST: Did they not wear eventually a red triangle?

BALACHOWSKY: No, because they had more privileges than the others and they wore the green triangle distinctly.

M. DUBOST: And in the working groups?

THE PRESIDENT: We have heard that they were all mixed up.

M. DUBOST: The fact will not have escaped the Tribunal that these questions are put to counter other questions which were asked this morning by the Counsel for the Defense with the intent to confuse not the Tribunal, but the witnesses.

BALACHOWSKY: I repeat that we had a complete conglomeration of nationalities and categories of prisoners.

THE PRESIDENT: That is exactly what he said, that these triangles were completely mixed up.

M. DUBOST: I think, that the statement by this second witness will definitively enlighten the Tribunal on this point, whatever the efforts of the Defense might be to mislead us.

[Turning to the witness] Do you know anything about the fate of tattooed men?

BALACHOWSKY: Yes, indeed.

M. DUBOST: Will you please tell us what you know about them?

BALACHOWSKY: Tattooed human skins were stored in Block 2, which was called at Buchenwald the Pathological Block.

M. DUBOST: Were there many tattooed human skins in Block 2?

BALACHOWSKY: There were always tattooed human skins in Block 2. I cannot say whether there were many, as they were continuously being received and passed on, but there were not only tattooed human skins, but also tanned human skins—simply tanned, not tattooed.

M. DUBOST: Did they skin people?

BALACHOWSKY: They removed the skin and then tanned it.

M. DUBOST: Will you continue your testimony on that point?

BALACHOWSKY: I saw SS men come out of Block 2, the Pathological Block, carrying tanned skins under their arms. I know, from my comrades who worked in Pathological Block 2, that there were orders for skins; and these tanned skins were given as gifts to certain guards and to certain visitors, who used them to bind books.

M. DUBOST: We were told that Koch, who was the head at that time, was sentenced for this practice.

BALACHOWSKY: I was not a witness of the Koch affair, which happened before I came to the camp.

M. DUBOST: So that even after he left there were still tanned and tattooed skins?

BALACHOWSKY: Yes, there were constantly tanned and tattooed skins, and when the camp was liberated by the Americans, they found in the camp, in Block 2, tattooed and tanned skins on 11 April 1945.

M. DUBOST: Where were these skins tanned?

BALACHOWSKY: These skins were tanned in Block 2, and perhaps also in the crematorium buildings, which were not far from Block 2.

M. DUBOST: Then, according to your testimony, it was a customary practice which continued even after Koch’s execution?

BALACHOWSKY: Yes, this practice continued, but I do not know to what extent.

M. DUBOST: Did you witness any inspections made at the camp by German officials, and if so, who were these officials?

BALACHOWSKY: I can tell you something about Dora, concerning such visits.

M. DUBOST: Excuse me, I have one more thing to ask you about the skins. Do you know anything about Koch’s conviction?

BALACHOWSKY: I heard rumors and remarks about Koch’s conviction from my old comrades, who were in the camp at that time. But I personally was not a witness of the affair.

M. DUBOST: Never mind. It is enough for me to know that after his conviction skins were still tanned and tattooed.

BALACHOWSKY: Exactly.

M. DUBOST: You expressly state it?

BALACHOWSKY: Absolutely. Even after his conviction, tanned and tattooed skins were still seen.

M. DUBOST: Will you tell us now what visits were made to the camp by German officials, and who these officials were?

BALACHOWSKY: Contacts between the outside—that is German civilians and even German soldiers—and the interior of the camp were made possible by departures and furloughs that some political prisoners were able to obtain from the SS in order to spend some time with their families; and, vice versa, there were visits to the camp by members of the Wehrmacht. In Block 50 we had a visit of Luftwaffe cadets. These Luftwaffe cadets, members of the regular German armed forces, passed through the camp and were able to see practically everything that went on there.

M. DUBOST: What did they do in Block 50?

BALACHOWSKY: They just came to see the equipment at the invitation of Sturmbannführer Schuler. We received several visits.

M. DUBOST: What was the equipment?

BALACHOWSKY: Equipment for the manufacture of vaccines, laboratory equipment.

M. DUBOST: Thank you.

BALACHOWSKY: There were other visits also, and some German Red Cross nurses visited that block in October 1944.

M. DUBOST: Do you know the names of German personalities who visited the camp?

BALACHOWSKY: Yes, such personalities as the Crown Prince of Waldeck and Pyrmont, who was an Obergruppenführer of the Waffen SS and the Chief of Police of Hesse and Thuringia, who visited the camp on several occasions, including Block 46 as well as Block 50. He was greatly interested in the experiments.

M. DUBOST: Do you know what the attitude of mind of the prisoners was shortly before their liberation by the American forces?

BALACHOWSKY: The prisoners of the camp expected the liberation to come at any moment. On the 11th of April, in the morning, there was perfect order in the camp and exemplary discipline. We hid, with extreme difficulty and in the greatest secrecy, some weapons: cases of hand grenades, and about two hundred and fifty guns which were divided in 2 lots, 1 lot of 100 guns in the hospital, and another lot of about one hundred and fifty guns in my Block 50. As soon as the Americans began to appear below the camp of Buchenwald, about 3 o’clock in the afternoon of the 11th of April 1945, the political prisoners assembled in line, seized the weapons and made prisoners of most of the SS guards of the camp or shot all those who resisted. These guards had great difficulty in escaping as they carried rucksacks filled with booty—objects they had stolen from the prisoners during the time they guarded the camp.

M. DUBOST: Thank you. I have no further questions to put to the witness.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now for ten minutes.

[A recess was taken.]

THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the defendants’ counsel want to ask any questions of this witness?

DR. KAUFFMANN: Are you a specialist in research concerning the manufacture of vaccines?

BALACHOWSKY: Yes, I am a specialist in matters of research.

DR. KAUFFMANN: According to your opinion, was there any sense in the treatment to which these people were subjected?

BALACHOWSKY: It had no scientific significance; it only had a practical purpose. It permitted the verification of the efficacy of certain products.

DR. KAUFFMANN: You must have your own opinion, as you were in contact with these men. Did you really see these people?

BALACHOWSKY: I saw these people at very close hand, since in Block 50 I was in charge of a part of this manufacture of vaccine. Consequently, I was quite able to realize what kind of experiments were being made in Block 46 and the reasons for these experiments. Further, I also realized the almost complete inefficiency of the SS doctors and how easy it was for us to sabotage the vaccine for the German Army.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Now, these people must have gone through much misery and suffering before they died.

BALACHOWSKY: These people certainly suffered terribly, especially in the case of certain experiments.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Can you certify that through your own experience, or is that just hearsay?

BALACHOWSKY: I saw in Block 50 photographs taken in Block 46 of phosphorus burns, and it was not necessary to be a specialist to realize what these patients, whose flesh was burned to the bone, must have suffered.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Then, your conscience certainly revolted at these things.

BALACHOWSKY: Absolutely.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Well then, I would like to ask you, how your conscience allowed you to obey orders to help these people in some way?

BALACHOWSKY: That is quite simple. When I arrived at Buchenwald as a deportee, I did not hide my qualifications. I simply specified that I was a “laborant”—that is a man who is trained in laboratory work, but who has no special definite qualification. I was sent to Dora, where the SS regime made me lose 30 kilos in weight in two months. I became anaemic . . .

DR. KAUFFMANN: Witness, I am just concerned with Buchenwald. I do not wish to know anything about Dora. I ask you . . .

BALACHOWSKY: It was the prisoners at Buchenwald who, by their connections within the camp, were the cause of my return to the Buchenwald Camp. It was M. Julien Cain, a Frenchman, the Director of the French National Library, who called my presence to the attention of a German political prisoner, Walter Kummelschein, who was a secretary in Block 50. He drew attention to my presence without my knowing it and without my having spoken in Dora of being a French specialist. That is the reason why the SS called me back from Dora to work in Block 50.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Please pardon the interruption. We do not wish to elaborate too much on these matters. I believe everything that you have just said is true—the reason why you were sent to Dora and why you were sent back to Buchenwald—but my point is a completely different one. I would like to ask you once more: You knew that these men were practically martyrs. Is that correct? Please answer yes or no.

BALACHOWSKY: I will answer the question. When I arrived at Block 50 I knew nothing, either of the Block 50 or of the experiments. It was only later when I was in Block 50, that little by little, and through the acquaintances I was able to make in the block, I found out the details of the experiments.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Very well. And after you had learned about the details of the experiments, as you were a doctor, did you not feel great pity for these poor creatures?

BALACHOWSKY: My pity was very great, but it was not a question of having pity or not; one had to carry out to the letter the orders that were given, or be killed.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Very well. Then you are stating that if in any way you had not followed the orders that you had received you might have been killed? Is that right?

BALACHOWSKY: There is no doubt about that. On the other hand, my work consisted in manufacturing vaccine, and neither I nor any other prisoners in Block 50 could ever enter Block 46 and actually witness experiments. We knew what went on concerning the experiments only through the index cards which were sent from Block 46 to be officially registered in Block 50.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Very well, but I do not think it makes any difference to one’s conscience whether one sees suffering with one’s own eyes, or whether one has direct knowledge that in the same camp people are being murdered in such a way. Now, I come to another question.

THE PRESIDENT: Was that a question you were putting there? Will you confine yourself to questions.

BALACHOWSKY: I beg your pardon. I should like to answer the last question.

DR. KAUFFMANN: That was not a question. I will put another question now.

BALACHOWSKY: I should like to reply to this remark then.

DR. KAUFFMANN: I am not interested in your answer.

BALACHOWSKY: I am anxious to give it.

THE PRESIDENT: Answer the question, please.

BALACHOWSKY: Suffering was everywhere in the camps, and not only in the experimental blocks. It was in the quarantine blocks; it was among all the men who died every day by the hundreds. Suffering reigned everywhere in the concentration camps.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Were there any injunctions that there was to be no talk about these experiments?

BALACHOWSKY: As a rule the experiments were kept absolutely secret. An indiscreet remark with regard to the experiments might entail immediate death. I must add that there were very few of us who knew the details of these experiments.

DR. KAUFFMANN: You mentioned visits to this camp, and you also mentioned that German Red Cross nurses, and members of the Wehrmacht visited the camp, and that furloughs were granted to political prisoners. Were you ever present at one of these visits inside the camp?

BALACHOWSKY: Yes, I was present at the visits inside the camp of which I spoke.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Did the visitors at this camp see that cardiac injections were being given? Or did the visitors see that human skin was tanned? Did those visitors witness any ill-treatment?

BALACHOWSKY: I cannot answer this question in the affirmative, and I can say only that visitors passed through my block. One had to pass almost through the entire camp. I do not know where the visitors went either before or after visiting my block.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Did one of your own comrades tell you perhaps whether the visitors personally saw these excesses? Yes or no.

BALACHOWSKY: I do not understand the question. Would you mind repeating it?

DR. KAUFFMANN: Did perhaps one of your comrades tell you that the visitors at the camp were present at these excesses?

BALACHOWSKY: I never heard that visitors were present at experiments or witnessed excesses of that kind. The only thing I can say, concerning the tanned skins is that I saw, with my own eyes, SS noncommissioned officers or officers—I cannot remember exactly whether they were officers or noncommissioned officers—come out of Block 2, carrying tanned skins under their arms. But these were SS men; they were not visitors to the camp.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Did these visitors, and in particular Red Cross nurses, know that these experiments were medically completely worthless, or did they just wish to inspect the laboratories and the equipment?

BALACHOWSKY: I repeat again that these visitors came to my laboratory section, where they saw what was being done, that is, the sterilized filling of the phials. I cannot say what they saw before or after. I know only that these visitors of whom I am speaking, the Luftwaffe cadets or the Red Cross people, visited the whole installation of the block. They certainly knew, however, what was the source of this culture, and that men might be used for experiments, as there were charts and graphs showing the stages of cultures originating with men; but it could have been from blood initially taken from typhus patients and not necessarily from patients artificially inoculated with typhus.

I really think that these visitors did not generally know about the atrocities in the form of experiments that were being performed in Block 46, but it was impossible for visitors who went into the camp not to see the horrible conditions in which the prisoners were kept.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Do you perhaps know whether people who received leave, that is, inmates who temporarily were permitted to leave the camp, were permitted to speak about their experiences inside the camp and relate these experiences to the outside world?

BALACHOWSKY: All the concentration camps were, after all, vast transit camps. The inmates were constantly changing, passing from one camp to another, coming and going. Consequently there were always new faces. But most of the time, apart from those whom we knew before our arrest, or a few other comrades, we knew nothing about those who came and went.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Perhaps I did not express myself clearly. I mean the following: As you said before, political prisoners were permitted to leave the camp temporarily from time to time. Did these inmates know about these excesses, and if they did know, were they permitted to speak about these experiments in the rest of Germany?

BALACHOWSKY: The political prisoners (very few and all of German nationality) who ever obtained leave were prisoners whom the SS had entrusted with important posts in the camp and who had been imprisoned for at least 10 years in the camp. This was so, for instance, in the case of Karl, the Kapo, head of the canteen of the Buchenwald Camp, the canteen of the Waffen SS, who was responsible for the canteen. He was given a fortnight’s leave to visit his family at his home in the town of Zeitz. Consequently this Kapo was free for 10 days and was able to tell his family anything he wanted to; but I do not know, of course, what he did. What I can say is that obviously he had to be careful. In any case, the prisoners who were allowed to leave the camp were old inmates, as I have said, who knew approximately everything that was going on, including the experiments.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Now, one last question. If I assume that the people you just described told anything to members of their families, even on the pledge of secrecy, and the leaders of the camp came to know of these indiscretions, do you not believe that the death penalty might have been incurred?

BALACHOWSKY: If there were indiscretions of that kind on the part of the family (for such indiscretions may be repeated among one’s acquaintances), or at least, if such indiscretions came to the knowledge of the SS, it is obvious that those prisoners risked the death penalty.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other Defense Counsel who wants to ask any questions?

HERR BABEL: I protest against the prosecutor’s declaration that I tried to confuse witnesses with my questions. I am not here to worry about the good opinion or otherwise of the press, but to do my duty as a defense attorney . . .

THE PRESIDENT: You are going too fast.

HERR BABEL: [Continuing] . . . and I am of the opinion that things should not be made more difficult by anyone taking part in this Trial—not even the press.

This war has brought me so much misfortune and sorrow that I have no reason to vindicate anyone who was responsible for this personal suffering or for the misfortune that fell on all our people. I will not try to prevent any such person from receiving his proper punishment. I am concerned only with helping the Tribunal to determine the truth, so that just sentences may be pronounced, and that innocent people may not be condemned.

THE PRESIDENT: Kindly resume your seat. It is not fit for you to make a speech. You have been making a speech, as I understood it; this is not the occasion for it.

HERR BABEL: I find it necessary because I was not protected against the Prosecution’s reproach.

[Herr Babel left the stand to resume his seat.]

THE PRESIDENT: One moment; come back. I do not know what you mean about not being protected. Well! Listen to me. I don’t know what you mean by not being protected against the Prosecution. The Prosecution called this witness and the defendants’ counsel had the fullest opportunity to cross-examine, and we understood you went to the Tribunal for the purpose of cross-examining the witness. I do not understand your protest.

HERR BABEL: Your Honor, unfortunately I do not know the court procedure customary in England, America, and other countries. According to the German penal code and to German trial regulations, it is customary that unjustified and unfounded attacks of this kind made against a participant of a trial are rejected by the presiding judge. I therefore expected that perhaps this would be done here too, but as it did not happen, I took the occasion to. . . . If by doing so, I violated the rules of court procedure, I beg to be excused.

THE PRESIDENT: What unjust accusations are you referring to?

HERR BABEL: The Prosecuting Attorney implied that I put questions to witnesses calculated to confuse them, in order to prevent the witnesses from testifying in a proper manner. This is an accusation against the Defense which is an insult to us, at least to myself—I do not know what the attitude of the other Defense Counsel is.

THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid I do not understand what you mean.

HERR BABEL: Your Honor, I am sorry. I think I cannot convince you as you probably do not know this aspect of German mentality, for our German regulations are entirely different. I do not wish to reproach our President in any way. I merely wanted to point out that I consider this accusation unjust and that I reject it.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Babel, I understand you are saying that the Prosecuting Attorney said something to you? Now, what is it you say the Prosecuting Attorney said to you?

HERR BABEL: The Prosecuting Attorney said that I wanted to confuse witnesses by my questions and, in my opinion that means I am doing something improper. I am not here to confuse witnesses, but to assist the Court to find the truth, and this cannot be done by confusing the witnesses.

THE PRESIDENT: I understand now. I do not think that the Prosecuting Attorney meant to make accusations against your professional conduct at all. If that is only what you wish to say, I quite understand the point you wish to make. Do you want to ask this witness any questions?

HERR BABEL: Yes, I have one question. [Turning to the witness] You testified that weapons, 50 guns, if I understood correctly, were brought into either Block 46 or 50. Who brought these weapons in?

BALACHOWSKY: We, the prisoners, brought them in and hid them.

HERR BABEL: For what purpose?

BALACHOWSKY: To save our skins.

HERR BABEL: I did not understand you.

BALACHOWSKY: I said that we hid these guns because we meant to sell our lives dearly at the last moment—that is, to defend ourselves to the death rather than be exterminated, as were most of our comrades in the camps, with flame-throwers and machine guns. In that case we would have defended ourselves with the guns we had hidden.

HERR BABEL: You said “we prisoners”; who were these prisoners?

BALACHOWSKY: The internees inside the camp.

HERR BABEL: What internees?

BALACHOWSKY: We, the political prisoners.

HERR BABEL: They were supposed to have been mostly German concentration camp prisoners?

BALACHOWSKY: They were of all nationalities. Unknown to the SS, there was an international secret defense organization with shock battalions within the camp.

HERR BABEL: There were German concentration camp prisoners who wanted to help you?

BALACHOWSKY: German prisoners also belonged to these shock battalions—German political prisoners, and in particular former German Communists who had been imprisoned for 10 years and who were of great help towards the end.

HERR BABEL: Very well, that’s what I wanted to know. Then, with the exception of the criminal who wore the green triangle, you and the other inmates, even these of German origin, were on friendly terms and helped each other; is that right?

BALACHOWSKY: The question of the “greens” did not arise, because the SS evacuated the “greens” in the last few days before the liberation of the camp. They exterminated most of them; in any case they left the camp, and we do not know what became of them. No doubt some are still hiding among the German population.

HERR BABEL: My question did not refer to those with the green badges, but to your relations with the German political prisoners.

BALACHOWSKY: The political prisoners, whether they were German, French, Russian, Dutch, Belgian or from Luxembourg, formed inside the camp secret shock battalions which took up arms at the last minute, and took part in the liberation of the camp. The arms that were hidden came from the Gustloff armament factory, which was located near the camp. These arms were stolen by the workers employed in this factory, who every day brought back with them either a butt hidden in their clothes, or a gun barrel, or a breech. And, in secret, with much difficulty, the guns were assembled from the different pieces and hidden. These were the guns we used in the last days of the camp.

HERR BABEL: Thank you. I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Does any other German counsel wish to ask questions? Have you any questions, M. Dubost?

M. DUBOST: I have no further questions, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness can retire.

[The witness left the stand.]

M. DUBOST: These two days of testimony will obviate my reading the documents any further, since it seems established in the eyes of the Tribunal, that the excesses, ill-treatment, and crimes which our witnesses have described to you, occurred repeatedly and were identical in all the camps; and therefore are evidence of a higher will originating in the government itself, a systematic will of extermination and terror under which all occupied Europe had to suffer.

Therefore I shall submit to you only, without reading them, the documents we have collected, and confine myself to a brief analysis whenever they might give you. . .

THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, you understand, of course, that the Tribunal is satisfied with the evidence which it has heard up to date; but, of course, it is expecting to hear evidence, or possibly may hear evidence, from the defendants; and it naturally will suspend its judgment until it has heard that evidence and, as I pointed out to you yesterday, I think, under Article 24e of the Charter, you will have the opportunity of applying to the Tribunal, if you think it right to call rebuttal evidence in answer to any evidence which the defendants may call. All I mean to indicate to you now is that the Tribunal is not making up its mind at the present moment. It will wait until it has heard the evidence for the Defense.

M. DUBOST: I understand you, Mr. President, but I think that the evidence we submitted in the form of testimony during these 2 days constitutes an essential part of our accusation. It will allow us to shorten the presentation of our documents, of which we shall simply submit an analysis or very brief extracts.

We had stopped at the description of the transports and under what conditions they were made, when we started calling our witnesses.

In order to establish who, among the defendants, are those particularly responsible for these transports, I present Document UK-56, signed by Jodl and ordering the deportation of Jews from Denmark. It appears in the first book of documents as Exhibit Number RF-335.

I will now continue presenting a question which was interrupted on Friday, when the session was suspended at 1700 hours. This Document Number UK-56 is a telegram transmitted en clair marked “Top Secret.” It is the 8th in the first book. Its second paragraph reads as follows:

“The deportation of Jews is to be carried out by the Reichsführer SS, who is to detail two police battalions to Denmark for this purpose.

“Signed: Jodl.”

Here we have the carrying out of a political act by a military organization or at least by a leader belonging to a military organization—the German General Staff. This charge therefore affects both Jodl and the German General Staff.

We submitted under Exhibit Number RF-324 (Document Number F-224), during the Friday afternoon session, an extract from the report of the Dutch Government. The Tribunal will find in this report a passage concerning the transport of Dutch Jews detained in Westerbork—which I quote, Paragraph 2:

“All Jewish Netherlanders, whom the Germans could lay their hands on . . . were brought together here. . . . “—Paragraph 3—“Gradually all those interned in Westerbork were deported to Poland.”

Is it necessary to recall the consequences of these transports, carried out in the conditions described to you, when witnesses have come to tell you that each time the cars were opened numerous corpses had first to be taken out before a few survivors could be found?

The French Document Number F-115 (Exhibit Number RF-336), is the report of Professor Richet. In it Professor Richet repeats what our witnesses have said, that there were 75 to 120 deportees in each car. In every transport men died. The fact is known that on arriving in Buchenwald from Compiègne, after an average journey of 60 hours, at least 25 percent of the men had succumbed. This testimony corroborates those of Blaha, Madame Vaillant-Couturier and Professor Dupont.

Blaha’s testimony appears in your document book under the Number 3249-PS. It is the second statement of Blaha. We have heard Blaha. I do not think it necessary to read what he has already stated to us.

Especially infamous is the transport to Dachau, during the months of August and September 1944, when numerous trains which had left France, generally from the camps in Brittany, arrived at this camp with four to five hundred dead out of about two thousand men in a train. The first page of Document Number F-140 states—and I quote so as not to have to return to it again—in the fourth paragraph which deals with Auschwitz: “About seven million persons died in this camp.” It repeats the conditions under which the transports were made and which Madame Vaillant-Couturier has described to you. On the train of 2 July 1944, which left from Compiègne, men went mad and fought with each other and more than six hundred of them died between Compiègne and Dachau. It is with this convoy that Document Number F-83 deals, which we submit as Exhibit Number RF-337, and which indicates in the minutes of Dr. Bouvier, Rheims, 20 February 1945—that these prisoners by the time they reached Rheims were already half-dead of thirst: “Eight dying men were taken out already at Rheims; one of them was a priest.” This convoy was to go to Dachau. A few kilometers past Compiègne there were already numerous dead in every car.

Document F-32, Exhibit Number RF-331, Page 21, contains many other examples of the atrocious conditions under which our compatriots were transported from France to Germany:

“At the station at Bremen water was refused us by the German Red Cross.

“We were dying of thirst. At Breslau the prisoners again begged German Red Cross nurses to give us a little water. They took no notice of our appeals. . . .”

To prevent escape, in disregard of the most natural and elementary feelings of modesty, the deportees were forced in many convoys to strip themselves of all their clothes, and they travelled like that for many hours, entirely naked, from France to Germany. A testimony to this effect is given by our official document already submitted under Document Number RF-301:

“One of the means used to prevent escapes, or as reprisal for them, was to unclothe the prisoners completely.”—And the author of the report adds—“This reprisal was also aimed at the moral degradation of the individual.”

The most restrained testimonies report that this crowding together of naked men barely having room to breathe, was a horrible sight. When escapes occurred in spite of the precautions, hostages were taken from the cars and shot. Testimony to this effect is provided by the same document—five deportees were executed:

“That was how, near Montmorency, five deportees from the train of 15 August 1944 were buried, and five others of the same train were killed by pistol shots by German police and officers of the Wehrmacht at Domprémy (Marne).”

Added to this quotation is that of another official document, which we have already submitted under F-321, Exhibit Number 331:

“Several young men were rapidly chosen. The moment they reached the trench the policemen each seized a prisoner, pushed him against the side of the trench, and fired a pistol into the nape of his neck.”

The same thing prevailed in deportations from Denmark. The Danish Jews were particularly affected. A certain number, warned in time, had been able to escape to Sweden with the help of Danish patriots. Unfortunately, eight to nine thousand persons were arrested by the Germans and deported. It is estimated that 475 of them were transported by boat and truck under inhuman conditions to Bohemia and Moravia to Theresienstadt. This is stated in the Danish document submitted under Document Number F-666, Exhibit Number RF-338.

In connection with this country it is necessary to inform the Tribunal of the deportation of the frontier guards:

“At most places, however, the policemen were dismissed as soon as they had been disarmed. Only in Copenhagen and in the large provincial towns were they retained, and partly by ship and partly by goods vans, taken southwards to Germany.

“The policemen were taken via Neuengamme to the concentration camp at Buchenwald. They were quartered there under indescribably insanitary conditions; a very large proportion of them were taken ill; about one hundred policemen and frontier guardsmen died and several still bear traces of the sojourn.”

When these deportations had been carried out, all the citizens of the subjugated countries of the west of Europe found themselves in the company of their comrades of misfortune of the east, in the concentration camps of Germany. These camps were merely a means of realizing the policy of extermination which Germany had pursued ever since the National Socialists seized power. This policy of extermination would lead, according to Hitler, to installing 250 million Germans in Europe in the territories adjoining Germany, which constituted her vital space.

The police, the German Army, no longer dared to shoot their hostages, but neither of the two had any mercy on them. More and more, were transported in ever increasing numbers from 1943 to German concentration camps, where all means were used to annihilate them—from exhausting labor to the gas chambers.

Censuses taken at various times in France enable us to ascertain that there were more than 250,000 French deportees, of which only 35,000 returned. Document Number F-497, submitted as Exhibit Number RF-339, indicates that out of 600,000 arrests which the Germans made in France, 350,000 were carried out with a view to internment in France or in Germany:

“Total number deported, 250,000; number of deportees returned, 35,000.”

On the following page are a few names of deported French personages.

“Prefects: M. Bussières, M. Bonnefoy, disappeared in the Cap Arcona, Generals: de Lestraing, executed at Dachau; Job, executed at Auschwitz; Frère, died at Struthof; Bardi de Fourtou died at Neuengamme; Colonel Roger Masse died at Auschwitz.

“High officials: Marquis of Moustier, died at Neuengamme; Bouloche, Inspector General of Roads and Bridges died at Buchenwald; his wife died at Ravensbrück, one of his sons died during deportation, his other son alone returned from Flossenbürg; Jean Devèze, engineer of roads and bridges, disappeared at Nordhausen; Pierre Block, engineer of roads and bridges, died at Auschwitz; Mme. Getting, founder of the social service in France, disappeared at Auschwitz.

“Among university professors, names well-known in France, such as: Henri Maspéro, Professor at the College de France, died at Buchenwald; Georges Bruhat, Director of the École Normale Supérieure, died at Oranienburg; Professor Vieille died at Buchenwald. . . .”

It is impossible to name each of the intellectuals exterminated by German fury. Among the doctors we must, however, mention the disappearance of the Director of the Rothschild Hospital and of Professor Florence, both murdered, one at Auschwitz, the other at Neuengamme.

As to Holland: 110,000 Dutch citizens of the Jewish faith were arrested, only 5,000 returned; 16,000 patriots were arrested, only 6,000 returned. Out of a total of 126,000 deportees, 11,000 were repatriated after the liberation.

In Belgium, there were 197,150 deportees, not including prisoners of war; including prisoners of war, 250,000.

In Luxembourg, 7,000 deportees—more than 700 were Jews. There were 4,000 Luxembourgers; out of these, 500 died.

In Denmark (Exhibit Number RF-338, Document Number F-666 already submitted) 6,104 Danes were interned; 583 died.

There were camps within and outside Germany. Most of the latter were used only for the sorting of prisoners, and I have already spoken about them. However, some of them functioned like those in Germany and among them, that of Westerbork in Holland must be mentioned. This camp is dealt with in Document Number F-224, already submitted under Exhibit Number RF-324, which, is the official report of the Dutch Government. The camp of Amersfoort, also in Holland, is the subject of Document Number F-677, which will be submitted as Exhibit Number RF-344.

What we already know through direct testimony of the regime of the Nazi internment camps makes it unnecessary for me to read the whole report, which is rather voluminous, and which does not bring any noticeably new facts on the regime of these camps.

There is also the camp of Vught in Holland. Then in Norway the camps of Grini, of Falstad, of Vlven; that of Espeland, and that of Sydspissen, which are described in a document provided by the Norwegian Government—Document Number F-240, Exhibit Number RF-292, which we have already submitted. The Tribunal will excuse me for not reading this document, which does not give us any information that we have not heard before from the witnesses.

The camps inside Germany, like all those outside Germany which were not transit camps only, should be divided into three categories—which is in accordance with German instructions themselves which fell into our hands. You will find these instructions in your second document book, Page 11. The pages follow in regular order. It is Document Number 1063-PS, USA-492. We read:

“The Reichsführer SS and Chief of the German Police has given his approval for the classification of the concentration camps into various categories which take into account the prisoner’s character and the degree of danger which he represents to the State. Accordingly, the concentration camps will be classified in the following categories:

“Category 1: For all prisoners accused of minor delinquencies. . . .

“Category 1a: For aged prisoners and those able to work under only certain conditions.

“Category 2: For prisoners with more serious charges, but still capable of re-education and improvement.

“Category 3: For major offenders charged with particularly serious crimes. . . .”

On 2 January 1941, the date of this document, the German administration, in dividing the camps into three categories, made an enumeration of the principal German camps throughout Germany in each category. It seems unnecessary to me to revert to the geographical location of these camps within Germany, since my American colleagues, with the help of geographical maps, have already dealt fully with this question.

The organization and functioning of these camps had a double purpose: The first, according to Document Number F-285, was to make good the labor shortage, and obtain a maximum output at a minimum cost. This document is submitted as Exhibit Number RF-346. I shall not read it in extenso, but from Page 14 of your second document book, I shall read the first paragraph:

“For important military reasons . . .”—this is dated 17 December 1942 and coincides with the difficulties encountered in the course of the Russian campaign—“. . . because of great difficulties of a military nature, which cannot be stated, the Reichsführer SS and Chief of the German Police ordered on 14 December 1942 that, by end of January 1943 at the latest, at least 35,000 internees, fit for work, shall be sent to concentration camps.

“To obtain this number the following is ordered:

“As from this date and to 1 February 1943, all Eastern or foreign workers who escaped or broke their contracts, and who do not belong to allied, friendly or neutral states, shall be sent back to concentration camps, by the quickest means possible.”

Arbitrary internments with a view to procuring, at the least possible cost, the maximum output from labor which had already been deported to Germany but which had to be paid since it was under labor contracts.

The organization of these camps was further intended to exterminate all unproductive forces which could no longer be exploited by German industry, and which in general might hinder Nazi expansion. Evidence for this is furnished by Document Number R-91, Pages 20 and 21 of the second document book, submitted as Exhibit Number RF-347, which is a telegram from the Chief of Staff of the Reichsführer SS, received at 2:10 o’clock on 16 December 1942 from Berlin.

“In connection with the increased allocation of labor to concentration camps, ordered to be completed by 30 January 1943, the following procedure may be applied regarding the Jews:

“1) Total number: 45,000 Jews.

“2) Start of transportation: 11 January 1943. End of transportation: 31 January 1943. . . .

“3)“—The most important part of the document—“The figure of 45,000 Jews is to consist of 30,000 Jews from the district of Bialystok; 10,000 Jews from the ghetto of Theresienstadt, 5,000 of which are capable of work and until now have been used for light tasks in the ghetto; and 5,000 Jews generally unfit for work, including those over 60 years of age. In order to use this opportunity for reducing the number of inmates now amounting to 48,000 which is too high for the ghetto, I ask that special powers be given to me. . . .”

At the very end of this paragraph:

“The number of 45,000 includes those unfit for work”—underlined (italics)—“(old Jews and children included). By applying suitable methods, the screening of newly-arrived Jews in Auschwitz should yield at least 10,000 to 15,000 people fit for work.”

This is underlined in the text.

And here is an official document which corroborates the testimony of Mme. Vaillant-Couturier, among various other testimonies on the same question, as to how the systematic selections were made from each convoy arriving at Auschwitz, not by the will of the chief of the camp of Auschwitz, but the result of higher orders coming from the German Government itself.

If it please the Tribunal, my report will cease here this evening, and will be continued tomorrow, dealing with the utilization of this manpower, which I shall endeavor to treat as quickly as possible in the light of the testimonies we have already had.

[The Tribunal adjourned until 30 January 1946 at 1000 hours.]

FORTY-SIXTH DAY Wednesday, 30 January 1946

Morning Session

MARSHAL: May it please the Court, I desire to announce that Defendants Kaltenbrunner and Seyss-Inquart will be absent from this morning’s session on account of illness.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Babel, I understand that you do not wish to cross-examine that French witness.

HERR BABEL: That is correct.

THE PRESIDENT: Then the French witness can go home.

M. DUBOST: Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, there is one reason that possibly that French witness ought not to go. I think I saw she was moving out of Court. Could you stop her, please? I am afraid that she must stay for today.

M. Dubost, are you going to deal with documents this morning?

M. DUBOST: Yes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Would you be so good as to give us carefully and slowly the number of the documents first, because we have a good deal of difficulty in finding them.

M. DUBOST: Yes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: And specify, also, so far as you can, the book in which they are to be found.

M. DUBOST: With the permission of the Tribunal, I shall continue my description of the organization of the camps and the way in which they functioned. We began last night by submitting to the Tribunal Document Number R-91 which showed that their purpose was: 1) to make good the shortage of labor; 2) to eliminate useless forces.

After Document R-91, which has been submitted under Exhibit Number RF-347, we shall read Document Number F-285, already submitted under Exhibit Number RF-346—second document book. This document is dated 17 December 1942 and is the conclusion of the document which we read to you yesterday. First paragraph:

“For important military reasons, which cannot be stated, the Reichsführer SS and the Chief of the German Police. . . .”

THE PRESIDENT: You read that yesterday.

M. DUBOST: That is correct, Mr. President, Page 18, sixth paragraph, at the top of the page.

“Poles eligible for German citizenship and prisoners for whom special requests have been made, will not be transferred to. . . .”

Last paragraph, Page 19:

“Other papers will not be required for Eastern workers.”

This shows that arrests were made without discrimination in order to obtain labor and that this labor was considered to be so unimportant that it was sufficient to register it under serial numbers.

Now, we will show how this labor was utilized. Men were housed, as the witness, Balachowsky, said yesterday, near factories in Dora in underground shelters which they themselves had dug and where they lived under conditions which violated all the rules of hygiene. At Ohrdruf near Gotha, the prisoners constructed munition factories. Buchenwald supplied the labor for the factories of Hollerith and Dora and for the salt mines of Neustassfurt. The Tribunal will read in Document Number RF-301, at the bottom of Page 45:

“Ravensbrück supplied the labor for the Siemens factories, those of Czechoslovakia, and the workshops at Hanover.”

These special measures, according to the witness, Balachowsky, enabled the Germans to keep secret the manufacture of certain war weapons, such as the V-1 and V-2:

“The deportees had no contact with the outside world. The work of deportees enabled the Germans to obtain an output which they could not have obtained even from foreign workmen.”

The French Prosecution will now submit Document R-129 as Exhibit Number RF-348, which the Tribunal will find in the second document book. It deals with the management of concentration camps:

“The administration of a concentration camp, and of all economic enterprises attached to it, rests with the camp commandant.”

Fifth paragraph, Figure IV:

“The camp commandant alone is responsible for the work carried out by the workmen. This work”—I underline (italics) the word work—“this work must be, in the true sense of the word, exhausting in order to obtain the maximum output.”

Two paragraphs lower on the page:

“The hours of work are not limited. This duration depends on the technical structure of the camp and the work to be done and is determined by the camp commandant alone.”

Further on, the last paragraph, Page 23 of the book:

“He”—the camp commandant—“must combine a technical knowledge of economic and military subjects with wise and clever management of the men so as to reach a high potential of output.”

This document is signed by Pohl. It is dated, Berlin, 30 April 1942.

I should just like to refer again to a document which we have already quoted in relation to the camp of Ohrdruf, and which was submitted under the Number RF-140.

I will now read from Document 1584-PS, Exhibit Number RF-349. This document is signed by Göring and is addressed to Himmler. It definitely establishes the responsibility of Göring in the criminal utilization of this deported labor. I shall read the second paragraph of the second page:

“Dear Himmler:

“. . . at the same time I ask you to keep at my disposal for Air Force armament the greatest possible number of KZ prisoners.”—The initials “KZ” mean concentration camp.

“Experience has so far shown that this labor can be put to very good use. The situation of the war in the air necessitates the transfer of this industry to underground workshops. In such workshops, work and housing can be particularly well combined for KZ prisoners.”

We know then who was responsible for the frightful conditions which the deportees of Dora had to endure. The person responsible is in the dock.

THE PRESIDENT: You did not give us the date of that, did you? Is that 19 February 1944?

M. DUBOST: On the first page you will see that on 19 February 1944 a letter was addressed to Dr. Brandt, referring to teletypes which were sent by the Field Marshal.

THE PRESIDENT: Is it the second letter, the letter that you read? Is the date of that 19.2.44?

M. DUBOST: It is 15 April 1944 on the original, of which this is a photostat.

THE PRESIDENT: And could you tell us what KZ means, the two letters, KZ?

M. DUBOST: 15.4.44 on the original of the teletype, that means concentration camp.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, for the accuracy of the record, it appears that the letter on the second page is not 15 April 1944, but 14 February. Is that not so?

M. DUBOST: Yes. It is 14 February, 2030 hours. It is a teletype, which was booked 15 April 1944. That was the cause of my error.

THE PRESIDENT: But, M. Dubost, were you submitting or suggesting that this letter showed that the defendant, Göring, was a party to the experiments which took place, or only to the fact that these prisoners were used for work?

M. DUBOST: I was not referring to experiments. I was referring to internment in underground camps, like the Dora Camp of which the witness Balachowsky spoke yesterday in the first part of his testimony. With regard to this will to exterminate, of which I have been speaking from the beginning of my presentation this morning, I think it is proved first of all by the text of Document Number R-91, submitted under Exhibit Number RF-347, which I read yesterday afternoon at the end of the session, a letter which has not as yet been authenticated, and by statements made by the witnesses who brought you proof that, at all the camps in which they were, the same methods of extermination by work were carried out.

As far as the brutal extermination by gas is concerned, we have the invoices for poison gas, intended for Oranienburg and Auschwitz, which we submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-350. The Tribunal will find translations on Page 27 of the second document book, Document Number 1553-PS.

I must point out, to be quite honest, that the French translation of these invoices is not absolutely in agreement with the German text. Therefore, in the fifth line, instead of “extermination” it should be “purification.”

The testimony of Mme. Vaillant-Couturier showed us that these gases, used for the destruction of lice and other parasites, were also used to destroy human beings. Besides, the quantity of gas which was sent and the frequency with which it was sent, as you can see from the great number of invoices which we offer in evidence, prove that the gas was used for a double purpose. We have invoices dated 14 February, 16 February, 8 March, 13 March, 20 March, 11 April, 27 April, 12 May, 26 May, and 31 May which are all submitted as Exhibit Number RF-350.

THE PRESIDENT: Are you putting in evidence the originals of these other bills to which you refer on this document?

M. DUBOST: I beg the clerk of the Court to hand them to Your Honor, and I request the Tribunal to examine these invoices carefully. They will observe that the quantities of toxic crystals sent to Oranienburg and Auschwitz were considerable; from the invoice of 30 April 1944 the Tribunal will see that 832 kilograms of crystals were sent, giving a net weight of 555 kilograms.

THE PRESIDENT: What is this document that you have just put in?

M. DUBOST: The 30th of April 1944, but I am taking them at random.

THE PRESIDENT: I am not asking the date. What I want to know is what is the authority for this document? It comes, does it not, from one of the committees set up by the French Republic?

M. DUBOST: No, Mr. President. The Document is an American document which was in the American archives, under the Document Number 1553-PS.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, this note at the bottom of Document 1553-PS was not on the original put in by the United States, was it?

M. DUBOST: No, Mr. President, but you have before you all the originals under the number which the clerk of the Court has just handed you.

THE PRESIDENT: Unless you have an affidavit identifying these originals, the originals do not prove themselves. You have got to prove these documents which you have just handed up to us either by a witness or by an affidavit. The documents are documents, but they do not prove themselves.

M. DUBOST: These documents were found by the American Army and filed in the archives of the Nuremberg Trial. I took them from the archives of the American Delegation, and I consider them to be as authentic as all the other documents which were filed by my American colleagues in their archives. They were no doubt captured by the American Army.

THE PRESIDENT: There are two points, M. Dubost. The first is, that in the case of the original exhibit, 1553-PS, it was certified, we imagine, by an officer of the United States. These documents which you have now drawn our attention to are not so certified by anyone as far as we have been able to see. Certainly we cannot take judicial notice of these documents, which are private documents; and therefore, unless they are read in Court, they cannot be put in evidence. That can all be rectified very simply by such a certificate or by an affidavit annexing these documents and showing that they are analogous to the document which is the United States exhibit.

M. DUBOST: They are all United States documents, and they are all filed in the archives of the United States in the American Delegation under the Number 1553-PS.

THE PRESIDENT: The American Document Number 1553-PS has not yet been submitted to the Tribunal and the Tribunal is of the opinion that they cannot take judicial notice of this exhibit without any further certification, and they think that some short affidavit identifying the document must be made.

M. DUBOST: I will request my colleagues of the American Prosecution to furnish this affidavit. I did not think it possible that this document, which was classified in their archives, could be ruled out.

This purpose of extermination, moreover, does not need to be proved by this document. It is sufficiently established by the testimony which we have submitted to the Tribunal. The witness, Boix, spoke these words: “No one is allowed to leave this camp alive . . . . There is only one exit, and that is the chimney of the crematorium.”

In Document F-321, Exhibit Number RF-331, Page 49, at the top of the page, we read:

“The only explanation which the SS men made to the prisoners was that no captive should leave the place alive.”

On Page 179, the paragraph before the last of the French text:

“The SS told us there was only one exit—the chimney.”

On Page 174, the last paragraph before the heading “Gassing and Cremation”:

“The essential purpose of this camp was the extermination of the greatest possible number of men. It was known as the extermination camp.”

This destruction, this extermination of the internees, assumed two different forms. One was progressive; the other was brutal.

In the second document book which is before the Tribunal, we find the report of a delegation of British Members of Parliament, dated April 1945, submitted under Exhibit Number RF-351, from which we quote these words (the third paragraph on Page 29):

“Although the work of cleaning out the camp had gone on busily for over a week before our visit . . . our immediate and continuing impression was of intense general squalor. . . .”

Page 30, the last paragraph but one:

“We should conclude, however, by stating that it is our considered and unanimous opinion, on the evidence available to us, that a policy of steady starvation and inhuman brutality was carried out at Buchenwald for a long period of time; and that such camps as this mark the lowest point of degradation to which humanity has yet descended.”

Likewise, in the report of a committee set up by General Eisenhower, Document L-159, which we submit under Exhibit Number RF-352, Pages 31, 32, and 33 of the same document book, we read:

“The purpose of this camp was extermination. . . .”

Page 31:

“Atrocities and other conditions in the concentration camps in Germany. Report of a committee founded by General Eisenhower under the auspices of the Chief of Staff, General George Marshall, to the Congress of the United States, concerning atrocities and other conditions in concentration camps in Germany.”

Page 32:

“The mission of this camp was extermination, by starvation, beatings, torture, incredibly crowded sleeping conditions, and sickness. The result of these measures was heightened by the fact that prisoners were obliged to work in an armament factory adjoining the camp which manufactured small firearms, rifles. . . .”

The means which were used to carry out this progressive extermination are numerous, as shown in documents which have just been handed to us. These documents, which we are going to submit, have been communicated to the Defense. They consist of printed formulas coming from Auschwitz, concerning the number of blows which could be administered to the internees or prisoners.

These documents will be handed over to the Defense for their criticism. They have just been given to us. I am not able to authenticate their origin today. They appear to me to be of a genuinely authentic character. Photostats of these documents have been given to the Defense.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, the Tribunal thinks that they cannot admit these documents at present. It may be that after you have more time to examine the matter you may be able to offer some evidence which authenticates the documents, but we cannot admit the documents simply upon your statement that you believe them to be genuine.

M. DUBOST: Moreover, everything in the camps contributed to pave the way for the progressive extermination of the people who were interned there. Their situation was as follows: They were exposed to a hard climate; some worked underground. Their living conditions have been brought to light by the testimony which you have heard. When the internees arrived, they were compelled to remain naked for hours while they were being registered or waiting to be tattooed.

Everything combined to cause the rapid death of those who were interned in the camps. A good number of them were subjected to an even harder regime, the description of which was given to the Tribunal by the American Prosecution when they submitted Document Number USA-243 and the following, dealing with the Nacht und Nebel regime, the NN.

I do not think it is necessary to return to the description of this regime. I shall merely submit a new document which shows the rigor with which the NN regime was applied to our compatriots. It appears under the Document Number F-278(b), submitted under Exhibit Number RF-326. It comes from the German Armistice Commission of Wiesbaden and shows that no steps were ever taken in reply to repeated protests by the French population, and even by the de facto government of Vichy, against the silence which shrouded the internees of the NN camps.

I shall now read Paragraph 2 which explains why no reply could be given to families, who had good reason for anxiety:

“This result was foreseen and desired by the Führer. His opinion was that effective and lasting intimidation of the population, which would put a stop to its criminal activities against the occupation forces, would be achieved by the death sentence, or by measures which would leave the offenders’ next of kin and the population generally in the dark as to their fate.”

We will not devote any more time to describing the blocks and the hygienic conditions under which the internees in the blocks lived. Four witnesses, who all came from different camps, have pointed out to you that the hygienic conditions in these different camps were identical and that the blocks were equally overcrowded in all these camps. We know that in all cases the water supply was insufficient and that deportees slept two or three in beds 75 to 80 centimeters wide. We know that the bedding was never renewed or was in very bad condition. We know likewise the conditions in which the medical services of the camp functioned. Several witnesses belonging to the medical profession have testified to this fact before you. The Tribunal will find confirmation of their testimony in Document F-121, Exhibit Number RF-354. We shall read just one line of Page 100 of your document book:

“Because of lack of water the prisoners were obliged to fetch stagnant water from the water closets to satisfy their thirst.”

And then in Exhibit Number RF-331, (Document Number F-321), Page 119 of the French text, third paragraph:

“The surgical work was done by a German who claimed to be a surgeon from Berlin, but who was an ordinary criminal. He killed the patient in each operation. . . .”

Two paragraphs lower:

“The management of the block was in the hands of two Germans, who acted as sick bay attendants—unscrupulous men, who carried out surgical operations on the spot with the help of a certain H . . ., who was a mason by trade.”

After the statements of our witnesses, who in their capacity as doctors of medicine were able to care for patients in the camp infirmaries, it seems superfluous to give further quotations from our documents.

When the workers had been worked to the point of exhaustion, when it became impossible for them to recover, selections were made setting apart those who were of no further use with a view to exterminating them either in the gas chambers, as related by our first witness, Mme. Vaillant-Couturier, or by intracardiac injections, as related by two other French witnesses, Dr. Dupont and Dr. Balachowsky. This system of selection was carried out in all the camps and was, moreover, in response to general orders, proof of which we showed when reading Document Number R-91, submitted under Exhibit Number RF-347.

In the first document book the Tribunal will find the testimony of Blaha, testimony which it will certainly recall and which was received here the 9 January—it is the testimony of Blaha, 3249-PS.

THE PRESIDENT: You have already given this as evidence, have you not?

M. DUBOST: I am not going to read it. I merely wish to recall it to the Tribunal because it forms part of my collection of proofs.

THE PRESIDENT: We do not want affidavits by witnesses who have already given evidence. This affidavit, 3249-PS, has not been put in, has it?

M. DUBOST: No, I am merely recalling the testimony which was given at the session. We shall not submit this document, Mr. President. We are merely utilizing this document to remind the Tribunal that during the session Blaha pointed out conditions existing in the infirmary.

To all these wretched living conditions must be added work, exhausting work, for all the deportees were intended to carry out extremely hard work. We know that they worked in labor squads and in factories. We know, according to the witnesses, that the work lasted 12 hours a day at a minimum, and that it was often prolonged to suit the whim of the camp commandant.

Document R-129 (Exhibit Number RF-348), from which I have already read, emanating from Pohl and addressed to Himmler, Pages 22 and 23 of the second document book, suggests that the working hours should be practically unlimited.

This work was carried out, as the witnesses have told us, in water, in the mud, in underground factories—in Dora for instance—and in the quarries in Mauthausen. In addition to the work, which was exhausting in itself, the deportees were subject to ill-treatment by the SS and the Kapos, such as blows or being bitten by dogs.

Our Document Number F-274, Exhibit Number RF-301, Pages 74 and 75, brings official testimony to this effect. Is it necessary to read to the Tribunal from this document, which is an official document to which we constantly refer and which has been translated into German and into English?

THE PRESIDENT: I do not think you need read it.

M. DUBOST: Thank you, Mr. President. This same document, Page 77 and Page 78, informs us that all the prisoners were forced to do the work assigned to them, even under the worst conditions of health and hygiene. There was no quarantine for them even in case of contagious diseases or during epidemics.

The French Document Number F-392, Exhibit Number RF-330, which we have already submitted, which is the testimony of Dr. Steinberg, confirms that of Mme. Vaillant-Couturier. It is the twelfth document of your first document book. We shall read at Page 4:

“We received half a liter of herb tea; this was when we were awakened. A supervisor, who was at the door, hastened our washing by giving us blows with a cudgel. The lack of hygiene led to an epidemic of typhus. . . .”

At the end of the third paragraph you will find the conditions under which the prisoners were taken to the factories; in the fifth paragraph a description of shoes:

“We had been provided with wooden shoes which in a few days caused wounds. These wounds produced boils which brought death to many.”

I shall now read Document R-129, Pages 22, 23, and 24 in the second document book, and which we submit under the Number . . .

THE PRESIDENT: One moment; the Tribunal will adjourn now for fifteen minutes.

[A recess was taken.]

THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, the Tribunal has been considering the question of the evidence which you have presented on the concentration camps; and they are of opinion that you have proved the case for the present, subject, of course, to any evidence which may be produced on behalf of the defendants and, of course, subject also to your right under Article 24-c of the Charter to bring in rebutting evidence, should the Tribunal think it right to admit such evidence. They think, therefore, that it is not in the interests of the Trial, which the Charter directs should be an expeditious one, that further evidence should be presented at this stage on the question of concentration camps, unless there are any particular new points about the concentration camps to which you have not yet drawn our attention; and, if there are such points, we should like you to particularize them before you present any further evidence upon them.

M. DUBOST: I thank the Tribunal for this statement. I do not conceal from the Tribunal that I shall need a few moments to select the points which it seems necessary to stress. I did not expect this decision.

With the authorization of the Tribunal, I shall pass to the examination of the situation of prisoners of war.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, possibly you could, during the adjournment, consider whether there are any particular points, new points, on concentration camps which you wish to draw our attention to and present them after the adjournment, in the meantime proceeding with some other matter.

M. DUBOST: The 1 o’clock recess?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that is what I meant.

M. DUBOST: I shall, therefore, consider as established provisionally the proof that Germany, in its internment camps and in its concentration camps, pursued a policy tending towards the annihilation and extermination of its enemies, while at the same time creating a system of terror which it exploited to facilitate the realization of its political aims.

Another aspect of this policy of terror and extermination appears when one studies the war crimes committed by Germany on the persons of prisoners of war. These crimes, as I shall prove to you, had two motives, among others: To debase the captives as much as possible in order to sap their energy; to demoralize them; to cause them to lose faith in themselves and in the cause for which they fought, and to despair of the future of their country. The second motive was to cause the disappearance of those of them who, by reasons of their previous history or indications given since their capture, showed that they could not be adapted to the new order the Nazis intended to set up.

With this aim, Germany multiplied the inhuman methods of treatment intended to debase the men in her hands, men who were soldiers and who had surrendered, trusting to the military honor of the army to which they had surrendered.

The transfer of prisoners was carried out under the most inhumane conditions. The men were badly fed and were obliged to make long marches on foot, exposed to every kind of punishment, and struck down when they were tired and could no longer follow the column. No shelter was provided at the halting places and no food. Evidence of this is given in the report on the evacuation of the column that left Sagan on 28 January 1945 at 12:30 p.m.

THE PRESIDENT: Where shall we find it?

M. DUBOST: It is in the document book submitted by M. Herzog. It is the report on the evacuation of the column that left Sagan on 28 January 1945. It is Document Number UK-78, submitted under Exhibit Number RF-46. A column of 1,357 British soldiers, including soldiers of all ranks, started out on 28 January 1945 for Spremberg.

THE PRESIDENT: Possibly this is the first document in your document book which has been handed up to us.

M. DUBOST: That is right, Mr. President. I shall now read to you the document on the evacuation of the Sagan Camp from 28 January to 4 February 1945. As the Tribunal has not the copy before it, I pass to Document Number UK-170, Exhibit Number RF-355.

THE PRESIDENT: I am just telling you that I rather think this may be the document, if it begins with “1,357 English prisoners of war. . . .” Does it begin in that way?

M. DUBOST: Yes. The document which you have before you, Mr. President, deals with the transfer of British prisoners. The one about which I wished to speak and from which I wanted to read to you dealt with the transfer of French prisoners. I think that it is not necessary for me to lengthen the session by showing the Tribunal that the British and the French prisoners were treated in the same fashion. I shall, therefore, restrict myself to your document.

“1,357 British war prisoners of all ranks marched out of Stalag Luft III in columns on 28 January 1945, and were thereafter marched for distances varying from 17 to 31 kilometers a day to Spremberg, where they were entrained for Luckenwalde. Food, water, medical supplies, and adequate accommodation were more or less nonexistent throughout the trip. At least three prisoners . . . had to be left at Muskau. . . .”

On the bottom of the page, three lines before the end:

“On the 31st they covered the distance of 31 kilometers to Muskau. It is small wonder that at this stage three men, Lieutenants Kielly and Wise, and Sergeant Burton collapsed and had to be left in the hospital at Muskau.”

Page 2 at the end of the document:

“On the march, apart from the Red Cross parcel already referred to, the only rations issued to the men were one-half loaf of bread and one issue of barley soup for each. The supply of water is described as ‘haphazard’. . . . No fewer than 15 of them escaped during the march.”

Now a statement by M. Bondot:

“The camp conditions of the Franco-Belgian column were even more rigorous. The camps were organized in a manner which was contrary to all the rules of hygiene. The prisoners were crowded into a very narrow space. They had no heat or water. There were 30 to 40 men to a room in Stalag III-C.”

M. Boudot’s statement is to be found in the report on prisoners and deportees which was also handed to you the other day by M. Herzog. I believe that the Tribunal has kept its documents of last Thursday . . .

THE PRESIDENT: We have kept those documents, but if we had them on the Bench before us you would not be able to see us.

M. DUBOST: Similar statements are found in the Red Cross reports. Berger, who was in charge of prisoner-of-war camps under Himmler from 1 October 1944, admitted in the course of his examination that the food supply of prisoners of war was entirely insufficient. The Tribunal will find on Page 3 of the document book, which is before it, an extract from Berger’s examination. Second paragraph:

“I visited a camp south of Berlin, the name of which I cannot remember at the moment. I shall perhaps remember later. At that time it was obvious to me that the food conditions were absolutely inadequate and a violent argument between Himmler and myself arose. Himmler was violently opposed to continuing the distribution of packages of the Red Cross in the prisoner-of-war camps at the same rate as before. As for me, I thought that in this case we should be faced with serious problems regarding the men’s health.”

We present Document Number 826-PS as Exhibit Number RF-356. This document was issued by the Führer’s headquarters and is a report on a visit to Norway and Denmark. It is on Page 7 of your document book, Paragraph 3:

“All the prisoners of war in Norway receive only sufficient food to keep them alive without working. The felling of timber, however, makes such physical demands on these prisoners of war that, if the food remains the same, a considerable decline in production must soon be expected.”

This note applies to the situation of the 82,000 prisoners of war held captive in Norway, 30,000 of whom were employed on very hard construction work which was being carried out by the Todt organization. This is found in the first paragraph of Page 7.

I now present to the Tribunal a document, Number 820-PS, Page 9 in the document book. It deals with the establishment of prisoner-of-war camps in the regions exposed to aerial bombardment. It was issued by headquarters. It is dated 18 August 1943. It was sent by the Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force to the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht. We submit it as Exhibit Number RF-358, and we shall read to the Tribunal Paragraph 3:

“The Commander-in-Chief, Air General Staff, proposes to erect prisoner-of-war camps in the residential quarters of cities, in order to obtain a certain protection thereby.”

I skip a paragraph:

“In view of the above reason, consideration should be given to the immediate erection of such camps in a large number of cities which appear to be endangered by air attacks. As the discussions with the city of Frankfurt . . . have shown, the towns will support and speed up the construction of the camps by all available means.”

The last paragraph:

“So far, there are in Germany about 8,000 prisoners of war of the British and American Air Forces (without counting those in hospitals). By evacuating the camps actually in existence, which might be used to house bombed-out people, we should immediately have at our disposal prisoners of war for a fairly large number of such camps.”

This refers to the camps set up in bombed areas and areas which were particularly exposed.

On Page 10 the Tribunal will find a document issued by the Führer’s headquarters, dated 3 September 1943, dealing with the establishment of these new prisoner-of-war camps for British and American airmen. We submit this document as Exhibit Number RF-339 (Document Number 823-PS):

“1) The Commander-in-Chief, Air General Staff, is planning the erection of further camps for air force prisoners, as the number of new prisoners is mounting to more than 1,000 a month, and the space available at the moment is insufficient. The Supreme Commander of the Luftwaffe proposes to establish these camps within residential quarters of cities, which would constitute at the same time a protection for the populations of the town and, in addition, to transfer all the existing camps, containing about 8,000 British and American Air Force prisoners, to larger towns threatened by enemy air attack. . . .

“2) The Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht, Chief of War Prisoners, has approved this project in principle.”

On Page 12 of the document book which the Tribunal has before it is a document, Number F-551, which we shall submit as Exhibit Number RF-360. It deals with the sentencing of prisoners of war in violation of Article 60 and the following articles of the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention provides that the protecting power shall be advised of judicial prosecutions that are made against prisoners of war and will have the right to be represented at the trial. The document which we submit as Exhibit Number RF-360 shows that these provisions were violated:

“In practice, the application of Articles 60 and 66, particularly Paragraph 2 of Article 66 of the Convention of 1929, concerning the treatment of prisoners of war causes considerable difficulties. For the application of severe penal jurisdiction, it is intolerable that precisely for the most serious offenses, as for instance, attacks on the guards, the death sentence cannot be carried out until 3 months after its notification to the protecting power. The discipline of prisoners of war is bound to suffer from this.”

I pass over the rest of the paragraph. On Page 12:

“The following regulation is proposed:

“a) The French may be confident that the trials by German courts-martial will be carried out thoroughly and conscientiously as before;

“b) Germany will designate, as before, a defense counsel and an interpreter. . . .

“c) In case of a death sentence an adequate respite will be granted.”

On top of Page 13:

“In this respect, in urgent cases, however, Germany must reserve for herself the right—even if not expressly stated—to execute the sentence immediately.”

Third paragraph:

“There is no question of allowing France, by virtue of Article 62, Paragraph III (POW), of the Geneva Convention, to delegate representatives to the chief sessions of the German Military Tribunals.”

We possess an example of the violation of Articles 60 and those following of the Geneva Convention in the report of the Netherlands Government, which the Tribunal will find on Page 14 of its document book.

THE PRESIDENT: I think we better break off now.

[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]

Afternoon Session

MARSHAL: May it please the Court, I desire to announce that the Defendants Kaltenbrunner and Seyss-Inquart will be absent from this afternoon’s session due to illness.

THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make.

When the attention of the Tribunal was called by the Defendant Hess to the absence of his counsel, the Tribunal directed that the presentation of the individual case against Hess be postponed, so that counsel could be present when it was presented. So far as the cross-examination of witnesses who testified to matters affecting the general case and not against Hess specifically is concerned, it is the view of the Tribunal that the cross-examination conducted by counsel representing the defendants equally interested with Hess in this feature of the case was sufficient to protect his interests, and the witnesses will therefore not be recalled.

The Tribunal has received a letter from the Defendant Hess dated 30 January 1946, to the effect that he is dissatisfied with the services of counsel who has been appearing for him and does not wish to be represented by him further, but wishes to represent himself.

The Tribunal is of the opinion that, having elected, in conformity with Article 16 of the Charter, to be represented by counsel, the Defendant Hess ought not to be allowed at this stage of the Trial to dispense with the services of counsel and defend himself. The matter is of importance to the Tribunal, as well as to the defendant, and the Tribunal is of the opinion that it is not in the interests of the defendant that he should be unrepresented by counsel.

The Tribunal has therefore appointed Dr. Stahmer to represent the Defendant Hess, in place of Dr. Von Rohrscheidt.

[Turning to M. Dubost] Yes, M. Dubost.

M. DUBOST: I beg the Tribunal to excuse me; I was completing the work which they had requested me to do in relation to concentration camps. In a few moments, when I have completed the exposé on the question of prisoners of war, I shall present to the Tribunal the end of the French presentation concerning concentration camps. This will not be much, for we shall have only a few documents to cite. Subject to counter evidence which the Defense may bring, the systematic repetition of the same methods seems so far sufficiently established.

We were at the point of reading a document of the Dutch Government, which was already presented to the Tribunal under Document Number F-224 (Exhibit Number RF-324) and which establishes that a protest was formulated, following the secret condemnation to death and the execution of three officers: Lieutenants J. J. B. ten Bosch, B. M. C. Braat, and Thibo.

I think that the document to which I alluded this morning, which is the official report of the French Government concerning prisoners, is now in the hands of the Tribunal. It is the document submitted by M. Herzog under Exhibit Number RF-46, Document Number UK-78. I ask the Tribunal to excuse me, as I cannot present this document again. I have no more copies.

It is evident from this document that the Nazis had a systematic policy of intimidation. They strove to keep the greatest possible number of prisoners of war in order to be able, if necessary, to exercise efficacious pressure over the countries from which these prisoners came. This policy was exercised by the irregular or improper capture of prisoners, and also by the refusal, which was systematically upheld, to repatriate the prisoners whose state of health would have justified this measure.

Concerning the irregular or improper capture of prisoners of war, we can cite the example of what happened in France after the signing of the armistice.

The report of the Ministry of Prisoners and Deportees, to which we refer, indicates, on Page 4:

“In 1940 certain French military formations laid down their arms at the time of the armistice under the assurance given by the German Army that troops who had thus surrendered would not be taken into captivity. These troops were, nevertheless, captured. The Alpine Army had passed over the Rhône in order to be demobilized and was west of the region of Vienne. They were taken prisoners and were sent to Germany until the end of July 1940.

“Moreover, noncombatant formations of special civilians were led into captivity and imprisoned in accordance with Himmler’s orders, which said that all Frenchmen of military age were to be seized indiscriminately. In short, it was only through the making of special exceptions and the private initiative of unit commanders that all Frenchmen were not transferred to Germany.

“Because of the enormous number of prisoners and the difficulties that faced the German Army in taking all those men to Germany, the German Army decided, in 1940, to create what they called ‘Front-Stalags.’

“The promise had been made to the Vichy Government, which was established after the armistice, that soldiers who were kept in these ‘Front-Stalags’ would be kept in France. Yet, the men in these camps began to be sent to Germany in October 1940.”

In an additional report appended to the document book which is before you, the Ministry of Prisoners and Deportees points out the irregular capture of the troops of the fortified sector of Haguenau, the 22d R.I.F., the 81st B.C.P., the 51st and 58th Infantry Regiments and a North African division. It is Document F-668 which I submit under Exhibit Number RF-361, the pages of which are not numbered, it is appended to the document book. I quote the document:

“Troops of the fortified sector of Haguenau: the 22d R.I.F. and the 81st B.C.P.

“These troops fought until 25 June, 1:30, and only stopped firing after an agreement between the colonel in charge of the fortified sector of Haguenau and the German generals, an agreement which guaranteed the troops the honors of war and particularly that they would not be made prisoners. The 51st and 58th Infantry Regiments, as well as a North African Division, withdrew towards Toul only after an agreement, signed on the 22 June, between the French General Dubuisson and the German General Andreas, at Thuilleaux-Groseilles, Meurthe-et-Moselle, an agreement guaranteeing military honors and confirming that the troops would not be taken prisoners.”

THE PRESIDENT: What official document does this document come from?

M. DUBOST: From the Ministry of Prisoners and Deportees. It is the additional report which was made by the French Government. We submit it under Exhibit Number RF-361.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you got the report on the captivity?

M. DUBOST: This report will be submitted to you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: It appears to be Addition Number 2 to the report on the captivity, for the attention of the French Delegation to the Court of Justice at Nuremberg.

M. DUBOST: That is correct, Mr. President. The information which I have just read to the Tribunal consists of extracts from a note from Darlan to Ambassador Scapini on 22 April 1941.

THE PRESIDENT: But M. Dubost, is there anything to show that it is an official document, such as this book?

M. DUBOST: This document, Mr. President, bears no relation to the one which I am quoting.

THE PRESIDENT: No, I know it does not, but this is an official document produced by the Republic of France, is it not?

M. DUBOST: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: How do you show that this Addition Number 2 to the report on captivity is equally an official document with this one? That is what we want to know.

M. DUBOST: Mr. President, it is a report which was submitted in the name of the Government of the French Republic by the delegation which I have the honor to represent.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you see, this one here is headed “Service of Information of War Crimes, Official French Edition.” Now, that seems to us to be different from this mere typewritten copy, which has on it the “Appendix Number 2 to the Report on the Captivity.” We do not know whose report on the captivity.

M. DUBOST: Mr. President, you have before you the official note of transmission from our government. The clerk of the Court has just handed it to you.

THE PRESIDENT: We have this document, which appears to be an official document, but this addition has no such seal upon it as this has.

M. DUBOST: There is mention of an appendix to this document.

THE PRESIDENT: The other is marked: Appendix. It must be identified by a seal.

M. DUBOST: The covering letter has a seal and the fact that it alludes to the document is sufficient, in my opinion, to authenticate the document transmitted. May I continue?

THE PRESIDENT: No. This document here has a letter attached to it. This document here is not referred to in that letter specifically. Therefore, there is nothing to connect the two documents together.

M. DUBOST: I think there is a manuscript note in the margin. I have not the document before me here and cannot be positive about it but I think there is a manuscript note in the margin.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal wishes you to put this in as one document. I see there is a manuscript note here at the side, in writing, which refers to the Appendix. If you will put the whole thing in together . . .

M. DUBOST: It is all submitted in one file.

Now I wish to read to the Tribunal extracts from two letters addressed to the German Armistice Commission at Wiesbaden by the ex-Ambassador Scapini, both dated 4 April 1941. The Tribunal will find them reproduced in the document book before them, Pages 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22:

“4 April 1941.

“M. Georges Scapini, Ambassador of France.

“To his Excellency Monsieur Abetz, German Ambassador in Paris.

“Subject: Men captured after ‘the coming into force of the Armistice Convention and treated as prisoners of war. . . .’”

At the bottom of the page:

“I. The Geneva Convention applies only during a state of war as far as captures are concerned. Armistice, however, suspends war operations; therefore, any man captured after the Armistice Convention came into force and treated as a prisoner of war, is wrongfully retained in captivity. . . .”

Page 17, third paragraph:

“The Armistice Convention, in its second paragraph, states only that the French Armed Forces stationed in regions to be occupied by Germany are to be brought back quickly into unoccupied territory and demobilized, but does not say that they are to be taken into captivity, which would be contrary to the Geneva Convention. . . .”

Fifth paragraph of the same page:

“1. Civilians. If it is admitted that civilians captured before the armistice cannot be treated as prisoners of war, as discussed in my previous letter, surely there is all the more reason not to consider as such those captured after the armistice. I note in this respect that captures, some of which were collective, were carried out several months after the end of hostilities. . . .”

Then on Page 18, the top of the page:

“To the categories of civilians defined in my first letter, I wish to add one more—that of demobilized civilians who were going back to their homes in the occupied zone after the armistice and who, more often than not, were captured on their way home and sent into captivity as a result of the initiative of local military authorities.

“2. Soldiers. As such I would define, by convention, men who, though freed after the armistice, could not for some reason—due to the difficult circumstances of that period—be provided with the regular demobilization papers. Many of them were captured and taken into captivity under the same condition as those mentioned above. . . .”

I think the Tribunal will not require the reading of that example, but if the President wishes, I shall read it.

THE PRESIDENT: No.

M. DUBOST: Let us turn to Page 19, the last paragraph, entitled:

“A. Civilians not subject to military service.

“It is obvious that these men could not be considered soldiers according to French law. They can be classified, according to age, into three groups:

“(a) Men under 21 not yet called to the colors. Example: Flanquart, Alexandre, 18 years old, captured by the German troops at Courrières, Pas-de-Calais, at the time of the arrival of the latter in that region. His address in captivity was Number 65/388, Stalag II-B.

“(b) Men between 21 and 48 who were not mobilized, who were demobilized, or who were considered unfit for service.”

There follows a rather lengthy list which the Tribunal will perhaps accept without my reading it. It consists merely of proper names. In the middle of the page:

“(c) Men specially assigned to the army. I will classify them into two groups:

“1. Men mobilized into special corps, which are military formations established at the time of the mobilization by different ministerial departments, according to the following chart . . . .”

At the top of Page 21:

“2. Men specially assigned, who at mobilization were kept in the positions which they held in time of peace in military services or establishments. Example: Workmen in artillery depots.

“Civilians specially assigned. Contrary to those mentioned above, the civilians who were specially assigned did not belong to military formations and were not subject to military authority. Nevertheless they were arrested. Example:”—I skip several lines—“Moisset, Henri, specially assigned to the Marret-Bonin factory.”—I skip a few more lines.

“Address in captivity: Number 102 Stalag II-A.”

Those people were not all freed, far from it. Some remained prisoners until the end of the war.

We shall cite now a document submitted under Exhibit Number RF-362 (Document Number F-224), the text of which is in your document book, on Page 15a. This text may be summarized in a few words. It is the story of Dutch officers who were freed after the capitulation of the Dutch Army and recaptured shortly afterwards and sent in captivity to Germany. Paragraph 3 of this document:

“On 9 May 1942 a summons addressed to all regular officers of the former Dutch Army who were on active service on 10 May 1940 was published in the Dutch newspapers, according to which they were to present themselves on Friday, 15 May 1942, at the Chassée Barracks in Breda . . . .”

Paragraph 5:

“More than one thousand regular officers reported to the Chassée Barracks on 15 May 1942. The doors were closed after them. . . .”

Paragraph 7:

“A German officer of high rank came into the barracks and declared that the officers had not kept their word to undertake no action against the Führer and, as a result of this, they were to be kept in captivity. . . .”

The following paragraph states that “they were taken from the station at Breda to Nuremberg, in Germany.”

Numerous obstacles were placed in the way of the release of French prisoners of war who, for reasons of health, should have been sent back to their families. I shall quote a document already submitted under Exhibit Number RF-297 (Document Number F-417), Page 23 of your document book; and I read, Paragraph 1:

“The question of releasing French generals, prisoners of war in German hands, for reasons of health or age was taken up on several occasions by the French authorities.”

This reproduction of the stencil is not quite clear. I continue with Paragraph 2:

“So far as this question is concerned, the Führer has always refused to consider either their release or allowing them to be placed in hospitals in neutral countries.”

Paragraph 3:

“Today release or sending to hospitals is more out of the question than ever. . . .”

And a written note reads: “No reply to be given to the French note.”

This note, in fact, was addressed by the Supreme Command of the German Army to the German Armistice Commission, who had asked for instructions as to whether or not they should reply to the request concerning the release of French generals who were ill, a request made by the Vichy Government.

Much more serious measures were undertaken against our prisoners of war by the German authorities when, for reasons of a patriotic nature, some of our prisoners gave the Germans to understand that they were not willing to collaborate with Germany. The German authorities considered them as incapable of being assimilated and dangerous; their courage and their determination gave much concern to Germany, and the measures taken against them amounted to nothing less than murder. We know of numerous examples of murder of prisoners of war. The victims were mainly: 1) men who had taken part in commando actions; 2) airmen; 3) escaped prisoners. These murders were carried out by means of deportation and the internment of these prisoners in concentration camps.

While interned in these camps, they were subjected to the regime about which you know and which was bound to cause their death, or else they were killed quite simply with a bullet in the back of the neck, according to the KA method which has been described by our American colleagues and on which I will not dwell. In other cases they were lynched on the spot by the population, in accordance with direct orders, or with the tacit consent of the German Government. In yet other cases, they were handed over to the Gestapo and the SD, who, as you will see at the end of my statement, during the last years of the occupation had the right to carry out executions.

With the Tribunal’s permission, we shall study two cases of extermination of combat troops captured after military operations: that of commandos and that of airmen.

As the Tribunal knows, men who were commandos were almost always volunteers. In any case, they were selected from among the most courageous fighters and those who showed the greatest physical aptitude for combat. We can consider them, therefore, as the elite and the order to exterminate them as an attempt to annihilate the elite and spread terror through the ranks of the Allied Armies. From a legal point of view the execution of the commandos cannot be justified. The Germans themselves, moreover, used commandos quite extensively; but whereas, in the case of their own men being taken prisoners, they always insisted that they be recognized as belligerents, they denied that right to our men or to those of the Allied Armies.

The main order concerning this was signed by Hitler on 18 October 1942, and it was extensively carried out. Moreover, this order was preceded by other orders of the OKW, which show that the question had been carefully studied by the General Staff before becoming the subject of a final order by the head of the German Government.

Under Document Number 553-PS, the Tribunal will find, on Page 24 of the document book, an order signed by Keitel which we submit as Exhibit Number RF-363. This order prescribes that all isolated parachutists or small groups of parachutists carrying out a mission shall be executed. It is dated 4 August 1942.

THE PRESIDENT: Do not read it.

M. DUBOST: I thank the Tribunal for sparing me the reading of it.

On 7 October 1942 a communiqué of the OKW, disseminated by the press and radio, announced the decision taken by the High Command to execute saboteurs. On Page 26 the Tribunal will find in the document book extracts from the Völkischer Beobachter of 8 October 1942 (Document Number RF-364):

“In future all terrorist and sabotage units of the British and their accomplices, who do not behave as soldiers but as bandits, will be treated as such by the German troops and shot on the spot without mercy, wherever it may be.”

Under the Exhibit Number RF-365 (Document 1263-PS), we submit the minutes of a meeting of the General Staff of the Wehrmacht, dated 14 October 1942. Paragraph 3:

“During the era of total warfare sabotage has become one of the most important elements in the conduct of war. It is sufficient to state our attitude to this question. The enemy will find evidence of it in the reports of our own propaganda units. . . .”

Page 29, the end of Paragraph 3:

“Sabotage is an essential element . . . we ourselves have strongly developed this means of combat.”

Then the sixth paragraph.

“We have already announced by radio our intention of liquidating, in future, all groups of terrorists and saboteurs acting like bandits. Therefore the WFSt has only to issue regulations to the troops how to deal with terrorist and sabotage groups.”

Page 30. The Tribunal will see what orders were given concerning the treatment of what the German General Staff called groups of terrorists and British saboteurs. It is certain that the German General Staff never called their own commandos groups of terrorists and saboteurs.

Paragraph A refers to groups of the British Army without uniform or in German uniform. I quote:

“In combat or in flight they are to be killed without mercy.”

Paragraph B:

“Members of terrorist and sabotage groups of the British Army wearing uniform, who in the opinion of our troops are guilty of acting dishonorably or in any manner contrary to the law of nations, are to be kept in separate custody after capture. . . .

“Instructions concerning the treatment to be inflicted upon them will be given by the WFSt in agreement with the Army legal service and the Counter-Intelligence Department, Foreign Section (Amt Ausland Abwehr).”

Finally, Page 31, Paragraph 2:

“Violation of the laws of war by terrorist or sabotage troops is in the future always to be assumed when individual assailants as saboteurs or agents, regardless of whether they were soldiers or whatever their uniform might be, place themselves outside the laws of war by committing surprise attacks or brutalities which in the judgment of our troops “are inconsistent with the fundamental rules of war.”

Paragraph 3:

“In such cases the assailants will be killed without mercy to the last man, in combat or in flight.”

Paragraph 4:

“Confinement in prisoner-of-war camps, even temporarily, is forbidden.”

Thus in carrying out these orders, if British soldiers, even in uniform, were captured during a commando operation, the German troops were to judge whether they had acted according to the laws of war or not; and without any appeal, subordinates could annihilate them to the last man, even when they were not engaged in active fighting. These orders were applied to British commandos.

We shall now quote Document Number 498-PS, which was submitted by our American colleagues under Exhibit Number USA-501 and which confirms the information which we have just given to the Tribunal by the reading of the preceding documents. It seems useless to read this document.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, there are two points to which I wish to draw your attention. In the first place, it is said that you are not offering these documents in evidence, you are simply reading them, and they must be offered in evidence so that the document itself may be put in evidence. You have not offered in evidence any of these documents; you have just been reading from them or have given them numbers.

M. DUBOST: Mr. President, I have submitted them all—absolutely all—except those which were already submitted by our colleagues; and all were filed with a number, and can be handed to you immediately. I shall ask the French secretary to hand them to you with the exhibit numbers which I read out.

THE PRESIDENT: They have all been put in evidence already?

M. DUBOST: Mr. President, some have been put in evidence and I quoted them with their exhibit numbers; but those which have not been submitted, I shall give French numbers when submitting.

THE PRESIDENT: You are saying, “have been put in evidence by some other member of the Prosecution”; is that right?

M. DUBOST: That is correct, Mr. President. When I quote them I give the number under which they were filed by my American colleagues.

THE PRESIDENT: That was filed by the American Prosecution, was it not: 498?

M. DUBOST: 498-PS on Page 32 has already been filed by my American colleagues under the Number USA-501, as I said before, sir. I shall not read it. I shall merely comment on it briefly.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. With reference to the document which preceded it on Pages 27, 29, 30, and 31 . . .

M. DUBOST: I shall ask the French secretary to give them to you with the numbers under which they were filed.

THE PRESIDENT: Have they been filed by the American prosecutor too?

M. DUBOST: Not all, Mr. President. Some were filed by the American Prosecution, others were filed by me.

THE PRESIDENT: What the Tribunal wants you to do is, when you put in a document, if it has not already been put in, give it a number and announce the exhibit number so that the record may be complete. Is that clear?

M. DUBOST: It is clear, Mr. President, but I believe that I have done so from the beginning, since the French secretary has just given you the file.

THE PRESIDENT: You may have put numbers on the documents, but you have not announced them in some cases.

There is another matter which I wish to state and it is this: When I spoke before, what I asked you to do was to confine yourself to any new points, and you are now giving us evidence about commandos and about British commandos, all of which has been already gone into in previous stages of the Trial, and that appears to us to be unnecessary.

M. DUBOST: The Tribunal will pardon me, but I have not read any of the documents already mentioned. The documents I read were documents not cited before. I had just reached a document which had been mentioned before, and I asked the Tribunal to excuse me from even commenting on it, since I thought the document was already well known to the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have had a good deal of evidence already about the treatment of commandos and sabotage groups, evidence, if I remember right, which attempted to draw some distinction between troops which were dropped from the air, for instance, close up to the battle zone and troops that were dropped at a distance behind the battle zone. You had quite a lot of evidence upon that subject. If there is anything which is of special interest to the case of France we would be most willing to hear it, but we do not desire to hear cumulative evidence upon subjects which we have already heard.

M. DUBOST: I did not think that I had brought cumulative proof to the Tribunal in reading documents which had not previously been read; but since that is so, I shall continue, but not without emphasizing that, in our view, the responsibility of Keitel is seriously involved by the orders which were given and by the execution of these orders.

Document Number 510-PS, Page 48, has not been read. We submit it as Exhibit Number RF-367, and we ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it. It concerns the carrying out of the orders which were given concerning the landing of British detachments at Patmos.

A memorandum from the General Staff to the commander of the different units, Document Number 532-PS, which is the appendix to the Tribunal’s document book, repeats and specifies the instructions which the Tribunal knows and does not bring anything new to the case. We submit this document as Exhibit Number RF-368, and we ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it.

We shall now deal with the execution of Allied airmen who were captured. From the statement which was made on this question, the Tribunal has learned that a certain number of air operations were considered as criminal acts by the German Government, which indirectly encouraged the lynching of the airmen by the population or their immediate extermination by the action “Sonderbehandlung” (special treatment); and need not be discussed again. This was the subject of Document Number USA-333, which has already been cited, and Document Number USA-334.

Within the scope of these instructions, orders were given by the letter of 4 June 1944 to the Minister of Justice to forbid any prosecution of German civilians in connection with the murder of Allied airmen. This is the subject of Document Number 635-PS, which you will find in the appendix to the document book. This document will become Exhibit Number RF-370.

“The Reich Minister and Head of the Reich Chancellery, 4 June 1944.

“To the Reich Minister of Justice, Doctor Thierack.

“Subject: Lynch law for Anglo-American murderers.

“My dear Dr. Thierack:

“The Chief of the Party Chancellery has informed me of his secret memorandum, a copy of which is enclosed, and has asked me to make it known to you also. I am complying with this, and ask you to consider to what extent you wish to inform the tribunals and the public prosecutors.”

On 6 June, two important conferences were held between Kaltenbrunner, Ribbentrop, Göring (all three defendants), Himmler, Von Brauchitsch, officers of the Luftwaffe, and members of the SS. They decided to draw up a definite list of air operations which would be considered as acts of terrorism.

The original transcript, drawn up by Warlimont and bearing written notes by Jodl and Keitel, is Document Number 735-PS, which I submit as Exhibit Number RF-371. It was decided during this conference that lynching would be the ideal punishment to stop certain types of air operations directed against the civilian population. Kaltenbrunner, for his part, promised the active collaboration of the SD.

THE PRESIDENT: Was it already read?

M. DUBOST: This document, so far as I know, was never read.

PROFESSOR DOCTOR FRANZ EXNER (Counsel for Defendant Jodl): I am protesting against the presentation of Document 532-PS, dated 24 June 1944. That is a draft of an order which was presented to Jodl but which was crossed out by him and therefore annulled.

At this opportunity I would also like to call the attention of the Court to the fact that we, the Counsel for the Defense, did not receive a document book like the one presented to the Tribunal; and it is therefore very hard for us to check and to follow the presentations of the Prosecution. Every morning we receive a pile of documents, some of which partly refer to future and some to past proceedings. But I have not seen a document book in chronological order for weeks. Furthermore, it would be desirable for us to receive the documents the day before. In that case, when testimony is presented, we could be of assistance to both sides.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Exner, are you saying that you have not received the document book or that you have not received the dossier?

DR. EXNER: I did not receive the document book, I would like to add something further. Some of the documents which have just been presented were quoted without signatures and without date, and it is questionable whether these so-called documents are to be considered as documents at all.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I imagine that you have just heard—I have told M. Dubost that he must announce the exhibit number which the French Prosecutor is giving to any document which he puts in evidence. As I understand it, he has been putting numbers upon the documents; but in certain cases he has not announced the number in open court. The document, as you have seen, has been presented; and, as I understand, it has a number upon it, but he has not in every case announced the number; and the Tribunal has told M. Dubost that it wishes and it orders that every document put in by the French Prosecutor should have an exhibit number announced in Court. That meets the one point that you raised.

As to your not having the document book, that is, of course, a breach of the order which the Tribunal has made that a certain number of copies of the documents should be deposited in the defendants’ Information Center or otherwise furnished to defendants’ counsel.

As to Document 532-PS . . . .

[There was a pause in the proceedings while the Judges conferred.]

Dr. Exner, is there anything further you wish to say upon these points, because we are just about to have a recess for a few moments. We would like to hear what you have to say before we have the recess.

DR. EXNER: I have nothing further to add to that; but if I may be permitted to make a further remark, we were advised that it was Your Honor’s wish that we should hear every day what is to be the subject of the proceedings on the following day, which would, of course, be a great help to our preparations. So far, that has never been the case. I myself have never heard what was to be dealt with the following day.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. M. Dubost, the Tribunal would like to hear what you have to say upon the points raised by Dr. Exner. First of all, upon the Document 532-PS; secondly, why he did not receive a document book; and lastly, why he has not received any program as to what is to be gone into on the following day.

M. DUBOST: As to the question of program, as Dr. Exner pointed out, the custom of providing it has not been established by the Prosecution. No one has ever given it, neither the French Prosecution nor its predecessors. Perhaps I did not attend the session the day the Tribunal requested that the program should be given. In any case I do not remember that the Prosecution was ever requested to do that.

As far as the document book is concerned, it is possible that this book was not handed to the Defense in the form which is before the Tribunal, that is to say, with the pages numbered in a certain order. However, I am certain that yesterday I sent to the Defense Counsel’s rooms the text in German and several texts in French of all the documents which I was to submit today. I cannot assure the Tribunal that they were handed over in the order in which you have them before you, but I am sure that they were sent.

THE PRESIDENT: As to Document 532-PS?

M. DUBOST: I had not begun to read Document 532-PS, Mr. President, so I could not have concealed the fact that there was a handwritten note in the margin.

THE PRESIDENT: Is it a document that had been put in before?

M. DUBOST: I do not believe so, Mr. President. In my dossier there are a certain number of documents which I have not read, as I knew it was the Tribunal’s wish that I should shorten my presentation; and Document 532-PS, which I submitted under Exhibit Number RF-368, is one of those.

THE PRESIDENT: The document, according to Dr. Exner, is a draft of a decree which was presented to Jodl but was not granted by him. Those were his words, as they came through on the translation; and, therefore, he submits that it is not to be considered and there is nothing to show that the document was ever anything more than a draft.

If so, isn’t it clear that it ought not to be received in evidence?

M. DUBOST: This is a question which the Tribunal will decide after having heard the explanation of Dr. Exner. This document did not seem to me of major importance to my presentation, since I did not read from it. In any case, as I did not read it, I could not have hidden from the Tribunal that there was a handwritten note in the margin. It is certain that this handwritten note is an element to be taken into consideration, and on which the Tribunal will base its decision whether Exhibit Number RF-368 should be accepted or rejected, after having heard the explanation of the Defense.

[A recess was taken.]

DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I had occasion during the recess to talk to my client, Keitel. Before the recess, the French Prosecutor had submitted as evidence Document Number F-668, Exhibit Number RF-361, an extract from a note from Admiral Darlan, addressed to the French Ambassador Scapini. The French Prosecutor believes, as I presume from his words, that he has proved by this that the agreements between German generals and French troops, who had laid down their arms, had not been kept. In view of the gravity of these accusations I would be obliged to the French Prosecution if they would declare, with respect to this document, first, whether these serious accusations of the French Government had also been brought to the attention of the German Government? The French Prosecutor had concluded from this document that the information contained therein was also proved. I would like to point out that it is an excerpt from a note from Admiral Darlan to the French Ambassador, Scapini. It is not clear from this document whether Ambassador Scapini had taken the necessary steps with the German Government or, furthermore, what reply was made by the German Government to this note. For this reason I would like to ask the French Prosecutor to declare whether he can establish from the documents he had whether these serious accusations were brought to the attention of the German Government, and secondly, what reply was made by the German Government. Since these documents of the Armistice Commission are in possession of the victorious powers, it is neither possible for the defendants nor the Defense to produce evidence themselves.

[M. Dubost approached the lectern.]

THE PRESIDENT: [Turning to M. Dubost.] Perhaps the most convenient course would be, if you wish to say anything about the objection which Dr. Nelte has just made, for you to say it now. As I understand it, that objection is that this document, F-668 (RF-361), is a note by Admiral Darlan complaining that certain French troops were surrendered on the terms that they were not to be made prisoners of war, but were afterwards sent to Germany as prisoners of war. What Dr. Nelte says is, was that matter taken up with the German Government and if so, what answer did the German Government give? That seems to the Tribunal to be a reasonable request for Dr. Nelte to make.

M. DUBOST: The reply was given, Mr. President, by Ambassador Scapini’s letter addressed to Ambassador Abetz.

THE PRESIDENT: My attention is drawn to the fact that the two documents to which you refer are dated 4 April. The document to which Dr. Nelte refers is a subsequent document, namely, 22 April. Therefore it does not appear, from documents which were anterior to the document of 22 April, as to what happened afterwards.

M. DUBOST: Mr. President, I, myself, am not aware of this. These documents were forwarded to me by the Prisoners-of-War Department. They are fragmentary archives forwarded by an official French office, which I shall inform of the Tribunal’s wish.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps it should be investigated and found out whether the matter was taken up with the German Government and what answer the German Government gave.

M. DUBOST: I shall do so, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Not at the moment, but in the course of time.

M. DUBOST: I shall have to apply to the French Government in order to discover whether in our archives there is any trace of a communication from the French Government to the German Government dated later than 26 April.

THE PRESIDENT: In the event of your not being able to get any satisfactory explanation, the Tribunal will take notice of Dr. Nelte’s objection, or criticism rather, of the document.

It is pointed out to me, too, the fact that the two earlier documents to which you are referring are documents addressed by the Ambassador of France to M. Abetz, the Ambassador of Germany; and it may be, therefore, that there is a similar correspondence in reference to Document Number F-668 (Exhibit Number RF-361) here in the same file, which is the file of which the French Government presumably has copies, or might have copies.

M. DUBOST: It is possible, but that is only a hypothesis which I do not want to formulate before the Tribunal. I prefer to produce the documents.

THE PRESIDENT: I quite follow; you cannot deal with it for the moment. As to the other matter which is raised by Dr. Exner, the Tribunal considers that Document Number 532-PS, which has been submitted under Exhibit Number RF-368, should be struck out of the Record in so far as it is in the Record. If the United States and the French Prosecutors wish the document to be put in evidence at a future date, they may apply to do so. Similarly the defendant’s counsel, Dr. Exner, for instance, if he wishes to make any use of the document, of course he is at liberty to do so.

In reference to the other matters which Dr. Exner raised, it is the wish of the Tribunal to assist defendants’ counsel in any way possible in their work; and they are, therefore, most anxious that the rules which they have laid down as to documents should be strictly complied with, and they think that copies of the original documents certainly should contain anything the original documents themselves contain.

This particular document, Number 532-PS, as a copy, I think I am right in saying, does not contain the marginal note in the script which the original contains. At any rate it is important that copies should contain everything which is on the originals.

Then there is another matter to which I wish to refer. I have already said that it is very important that documents, when they are put in evidence, should not only be numbered as exhibits, but that the exhibit number should be stated at the time; and also even more important, or as important, that the certificate certifying where the document comes from should also be produced for the Tribunal. Every document put in by the United States bore upon it a certificate stating where it had been found or what was its origin, and it is important that that practice should be adopted in every case.

The only other thing I want to say is that it would be very convenient, both to defendants’ counsel and to the Tribunal too, that they should be informed at least the night before of the program which counsel proposes to adopt for the following day. It is true, as was said, that perhaps that has not been absolutely regularly carried out by the Prosecutor on all occasions; but it has been done on quite a number of occasions within my recollection, and it is at any rate the most convenient practice, which the Tribunal desires should be carried out; and they would be glad to know above all what you, M. Dubost, propose to address yourself to tomorrow; and the Tribunal would be very grateful to know how long the French Prosecutors anticipate their case will take. They would like you, before you finish or at the conclusion of your address this afternoon, to indicate to the Tribunal and to the defendants’ counsel, what the program for tomorrow is to be.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Honor please, I wonder if I could say one word in regard to the position as to documents, because I had an opportunity during recess of consulting with my friend Mr. Dodd, and also with my friend M. Dubost. All PS documents form a series of captured documents, whose origin and the process taken subsequent to the article, were verified on 22 November by an affidavit by Major Coogan, which was put in by my friend Colonel Storey. It is the submission of the Prosecution, which, of course, it is delighted to elaborate any time convenient to the Tribunal, that all such documents being captured and verified in that way are admissible. I stress the word admissible, but the weight which the Tribunal will attach to any respective documents is, of course, a matter at which the Tribunal would arrive from the contents of the document and the circumstances under which it came into being. That, I fear, is the only reason I ventured to intervene at the moment, that there might be some confusion between the general verification of the document as a captured document, which is done by Major Coogan’s affidavit, and the individual certificate of translation, that is, of the correctness of the translation of the different documents, which appeared at the end of each individual American document. The fact is that my friend, Mr. Dodd, and I were very anxious that that matter should be before the Tribunal, and we should be only too delighted to give to the Tribunal any further information which it desires.

THE PRESIDENT: Does that affidavit of Major Coogan apply to all the other series of documents put in by the United States?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It applies to PS and I think it is D, C, L, R and EC.

THE PRESIDENT: Does that certificate then cover this particular sheet of paper which is marked 532-PS, and has on it no other identifying mark?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. The affidavit proves that that was a document captured from German sources; it gives the whole process—what happens after. I have not troubled the Tribunal by reading it, because as such we submit that it is admissible as a submission. Of course, the matter of weight may vary. I do not want the Tribunal to be under a misapprehension that every document was certified individually; what is certified is, of course, a non-captured document. If a document comes from any of the sources mentioned in Article 21, then someone with authority from his government certifies it as coming from one of these sources and that we do individually. But concerning captured documents, we do not make any individual certification; we depend on Major Coogan’s affidavit.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but just a moment. Sir David, it is perhaps right to say in reference to this particular document, 532-PS, or the portion of it which has been produced, first of all that the copy which was put before us did not contain the marginal note, and that it is, therefore, wrong. We are in agreement with your submission that it has been certified, as you say, by Major Coogan’s affidavit, which is admissible; but, of course, that has nothing to do with its weight. That is the point on which Dr. Exner was addressing us.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: So I appreciated it, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: It is a document—being a private document and not a document of which we can take judicial notice—which has not been read in court by the United States or other prosecutors, and it is not in evidence now because it has not been read by M. Dubost.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Your Honor, with that, of course, I do not desire anything further. That is the ruling of the Tribunal. The only part that I did want to stress was that the PS as such is being verified and, of course, subject to reading it in Court, it could be put in.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. We quite understand that.

I ought to say, on behalf of the Tribunal, that we owe an apology to the French Prosecutor and his staff, because it has just been pointed out to me that this marginal note does appear upon the translation and, therefore, M. Dubost, I tender to you my apology.

M. DUBOST: I thank you, Mr. President. The Tribunal will certainly remember that this morning Document Number 1553-PS was set aside, which includes in it bills for gas destined for Oranienburg and Auschwitz. I believe that, after the explanation given by Sir David, this Document 1553-PS may now be admitted by the Tribunal since it has already been certified.

THE PRESIDENT: Was it read, M. Dubost?

M. DUBOST: Yes, Mr. President. I was in the process of reading it this morning. It is the 27th document in the second document book of this morning, but the Tribunal rejected it, with the demand that I furnish an affidavit. The intervention of Sir David constitutes this affidavit. I beg the Tribunal to forgive my making this request, but I should be grateful if it would accept the document which was refused this morning.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

M. DUBOST: I thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, it was a question of gas, was it not?

M. DUBOST: That is right.

THE PRESIDENT: There was one bill of lading and then there were a number of other bills of lading which were referred to.

M. DUBOST: Yes. And the whole constituted Document Number 1553-PS, submitted under Exhibit Number RF-350. This document is included in the series covered by the affidavit of which Sir David has spoken to you.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, if you attach importance to it, would it not be possible for you to give us the figures from these other bills of lading? I mean the amount of the gas.

M. DUBOST: Certainly, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Just in order that it may be upon the shorthand note.

M. DUBOST: 14 February 1944, gross weight 832 kilos, net weight 555 kilos (destination Auschwitz); 16 February 1944, gross weight 832 kilos, net weight 555 kilos (destination Oranienburg); 13 March 1944, gross weight 896 kilos, net weight 598 kilos (destination Auschwitz); 13 March 1944, gross weight 896 kilos, net weight 598 kilos (destination Oranienburg); 30 April 1944, gross weight 832 kilos, net weight 555 kilos (destination Auschwitz); 30 April 1944, gross weight 832 kilos, net weight 555 kilos (destination Oranienburg); 18 May 1944, gross weight 832 kilos, net weight 555 kilos (destination Oranienburg); 31 May 1944, gross weight 832 kilos, net weight 555 kilos (destination Auschwitz). This appears to me to be all.

To Document 1553-PS is added the statement by Gerstein, and also the statement by the chief of the American service who collected this document.

With the permission of the Tribunal, I shall proceed with the presentation of the crimes of which we accuse the defendants against Allied prisoners of war who were interned in Germany. Document Number 735-PS, Page 68 of the document book, which we submitted a short time ago under Exhibit Number RF-371, is a report on important meetings which brought together Kaltenbrunner, Ribbentrop, and Göring, in the course of which the list of air operations which constituted acts of terrorism was drawn up.

It was decided in these meetings that lynching would be the ideal punishment for all actions directed against civilian populations, which the German Government claimed had the character of terrorism.

On Page 68 Ribbentrop is involved. We read in one of the three copies of the notes of the meetings that were held that day, in the first paragraph, 11th line:

“Contrary to the first proposals of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who wanted to include all terrorist attacks against the civilian population and consequently air attacks against cities . . . .”

The proposals made by Ribbentrop were far in excess of what was accepted at the time of this meeting. The three lines which follow deserve the attention of the Tribunal:

“Lynch law should be the rule. There was, on the other hand, no question of a judgment rendered by a tribunal or handing over to the police.”

In Paragraph b), bottom of the page:

“. . . one would have to distinguish between enemy airmen who were suspected of criminal acts of this kind and prepare for their admission in the airmen’s camp at Oberursel, and those who should be turned over to the SD for special treatment when the suspicions were confirmed.”

The Tribunal will certainly remember the description which was given of this “special treatment” by the American prosecution. What is involved is purely and simply the extermination of Allied airmen who had fallen into the hands of the German Army.

On Page 69 the Tribunal may read, under Figure 3, the description and the enumeration of the acts which are to be considered as terrorist acts and as justifying lynching.

“(a) Firing weapons at the civilian population, and gatherings of civilians.

“(b) Firing at German airmen who have bailed out of their aircraft.

“(c) Firing weapons at passenger trains and public conveyances.

“(d) Firing weapons at hospital or hospital trains that are clearly marked with a red cross.”

Three lines below:

“Should such acts be established in the course of interrogation, the prisoners must be handed over to the SD.”

This document originates from the Führer’s headquarters. It was drawn up there on 6 June 1944, and it bears the stamp of the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Wehrmacht.

THE PRESIDENT: I think that has all been read, M. Dubost. I think that document was all read before.

M. DUBOST: Mr. President, I was told that it had not been read.

THE PRESIDENT: I have not verified it.

M. DUBOST: We submit Document Number 729-PS, as Exhibit Number RF-372. This document confirms the preceding one. It originates from the Führer’s headquarters, is dated 15 June 1944, and reiterates the orders I have read. But this document is signed by General Keitel, whereas the preceding one was signed “J.” We have not been able to identify the author of this initial.

Document Number 730-PS, which we next submit as Exhibit Number RF-373, is likewise from the Führer’s headquarters, and is also dated 15 June 1944. It is addressed to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the attention of Ambassador Ritter. The Tribunal will find it on Page 71 in the document book. This document contains the instructions signed “Keitel” in the preceding document, and it is likewise signed by Keitel.

We shall submit as Exhibit Number RF-374, Document 733-PS, which concerns the treatment which is to be meted out to airmen falling into the hands of the German Army. It is a telephone message from the Adjutant of the Reich Marshal, Captain Breuer.

DR. NELTE: I assume that you have finished with the question of lynching. In the presentation of this case the words “Orders of Keitel” have been used repeatedly. The prosecutor has not read these documents. I would be obliged if the prosecutor would produce a document which contains an order, which raises lynch law to the level of an order, as has been claimed by the Prosecution. The Defendants Keitel and Jodl maintain that such an order was never given, that these conferences concerning which documents have been produced—that these documents never became orders because the authorities concerned prevented this.

THE PRESIDENT: The documents speak for themselves.

M. DUBOST: Does the Tribunal wish to listen to the complete reading of these documents which are signed by Keitel? They are not orders, they are projects. Moreover, I emphasized that point when I announced them to the Tribunal. At Page 80 of our document book, you will find, dated 30 June 1944, with Keitel’s visa:

“Note for meeting.

“Subject: The treatment of enemy terror flyers:

“I. Enclosed, draft of written reply by the Reich Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Chief of the OKW for the Operational Staff of the Wehrmacht.”

I am skipping a paragraph:

“II. The Reich Marshal approves the definition of terror flyer communicated by the OKW, as well as the procedure which is proposed.”

This document is submitted as Exhibit Number RF-375. I have not submitted to the Tribunal a regular formal order; but I have brought three documents which, in my opinion, are equivalent to a formal order because, with the visa of Keitel, we have this note, signed by Warlimont, which states: “The Reich Marshal approves the definition of terror flyer communicated by the OKW, as well as the procedure which is proposed.” This document bears the visa of Keitel.

We shall now submit a document, Number L-154, which has already been submitted by our American colleagues under Exhibit Number USA-335. My colleague has read this text in extenso. I will merely refer to three lines, in order not to delay the proceedings, “In principle, no fighter-bomber pilots brought down are to be saved from the fury of the people.” That text comes from the offices of Albert Hoffmann, Gauleiter and Commissioner for the Defense of the Reich, of the Gau South Westphalia.

Under Exhibit Number RF-376 we shall submit Document Number F-686, on Page 82 of our document book. This is the record of an interrogation of Hugo Grüner on 29 December 1945. He was subordinate to Robert Wagner, Gauleiter of Baden and Alsace. In the last lines of this document, Page 82, Grüner states:

“Wagner gave a formal order to kill all Allied airmen we could capture. In this connection Gauleiter Wagner explained to us that Allied airmen were causing great ravages on German territory, that he considered it was an inhuman war, and that therefore, under the circumstances, any airmen captured should not be considered as prisoners of war and deserved no mercy.”

Page 83, at the top of the page:

“He stated that Kreisleiter, if the occasion offered, should not fail to capture and shoot the Allied airmen themselves. As I have told you, Röhm was assistant to Wagner, but Wagner himself did not speak. I can state that SS General Hoffmann, who was SS chief of the police for the Southwest Region, was present when the order was given to us by Wagner to kill Allied airmen.”

This witness, Hugo Grüner, confesses that he participated in the execution of Allied airmen in October or November 1944.

Passing through Rheinweiler, he (Grüner) noticed that some English or American airmen had been taken out of the Rhine by soldiers. The four airmen were wearing khaki uniforms, were bareheaded, and were of average height. He could not speak to them because he did not know the English language. The Wehrmacht refused to take charge of them.

That is the third paragraph at the bottom of the page and the witness declares—I am reading:

“I told the gendarmes that I had received orders from Wagner to execute any Allied airman taken prisoner. The gendarmes replied that it was the only thing to be done. I then decided to execute the four Allied prisoners and one of the gendarmes present advised the banks of the Rhine as the place of execution.”

On Page 84, Paragraph 1, Grüner describes how he proceeded to assassinate these airmen and admits that he killed them with machine gun shots in the back. In the third paragraph he gives the name of one of his accomplices, Erich Meissner, who was a Gestapo agent from Lorrach, and then he denounces Meissner for having himself killed an airman as he was getting out of his car and was walking toward the Rhine. I read:

“He killed them by firing a machine gun salvo at each of them in the back, after which each airman was dragged by the feet and thrown into the Rhine.”

This affidavit was received by the Police Magistrate of Strasbourg. The document which we shall submit was signed by the magistrate’s clerk of the court as a certified copy. This is how the orders given by the leaders of the German Government were carried out by the German people.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, I see that it is 5 o’clock now, and perhaps you would be able to tell us what your program would be for tomorrow.

M. DUBOST: Tomorrow we shall complete the presentation of the question of prisoners of war. We shall present to you in an abridged form documents which seem to us to be indispensable, in spite of the hearing of witnesses concerning the camps. There are only a few documents, but they all directly inculpate one or other of the defendants. Then we shall show how the orders given by the leaders of the German Army led subordinates to commit acts of terrorism and banditry in France against the innocent population, and also against patriots who were not treated as francs-tireurs but as ordinary criminals.

We expect to finish tomorrow morning. In the afternoon, my colleague, M. Faure, could begin the presentation of this last part of the French charges concerning crimes against humanity.

THE PRESIDENT: Are you not able to give us any estimate of the length of the whole of the French Prosecution?

M. DUBOST: I believe that three days will be sufficient for M. Faure. The individual charges will be summarized in one-half day by our colleague, M. Mounier, and that will be the end.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now.

[The Tribunal adjourned until 31 January 1946 at 1000 hours.]

FORTY-SEVENTH DAY Thursday, 31 January 1946

Morning Session

MARSHAL: May it please the Court, I desire to announce that the Defendants Kaltenbrunner and Seyss-Inquart will be absent from this morning’s session on account of illness.

M. DUBOST: Before finishing, Gentlemen, I must read you a few more documents concerning war prisoners.

First of all, it will be Document Number L-166, which we present as Exhibit Number RF-377, Page 65 in your document book. It concerns a note which summarizes an interview with the Reich Marshal, on 15 and 16 May 1944, on the subject of pursuit planes. Page 8, Paragraph Number 20:

“The Reich Marshal will propose to the Führer that American and English crews who fire indiscriminately on towns, on civilian trains in motion, or on soldiers dropping by parachute, shall be shot immediately on the spot.”

The importance of this document need not be emphasized. It shows the guilt of the Defendant Göring in reprisals against Allied airmen brought down in Germany.

We shall now read Document R-117, which we submit as Exhibit Number RF-378. Two Liberators, brought down on 21 June 1944 in the District of Mecklenburg, came to earth with their crews intact, 15 men all told. All were shot on the pretext of attempting to escape. The document was found in the files of the headquarters of the 11th Luftgaukommando, and states that nine members of one crew were handed over to the local police. In the next to the last paragraph, third line, we read that they were made prisoners and handed over to the police in Waren. Lieutenants Helton and Ludka were handed over on 21 June 1944 by the protective police to SS Untersturmführer Stempel, of the Security Police, and former Commissioner of the Criminal Police, at Fürstenberg:

“These seven prisoners were shot en route while attempting to escape.

“Lieutenants Helton and Ludka were also shot on the same day while attempting to escape.”

Regarding the second Liberator, at Page 91 we read:

“Subject: Crash of a Liberator on 21 June 1944, at 11:30 a.m. . . . six members of the crew shot while attempting to escape; one, seriously wounded, brought to the garrison hospital at Schwerin.”

We now submit as Exhibit Number RF-379, Document F-553, which the Tribunal will find on Page 101 of the document book. This document concerns the internment in concentration camps and extermination camps of prisoners of war. Among the escaped prisoners a discrimination was made. If they were privates and noncommissioned officers who had agreed to work, they were generally sent back to the camp and punished in conformity with Articles 47, and following, of the Geneva Convention. If it was a question of officers or noncommissioned officers—this is a comment I am making on the document which I shall read to the Tribunal—if it was a question of officers or noncommissioned officers who had refused to work, they were handed over to the police and generally murdered without trial.

One can understand the aim of this discrimination. Those French noncommissioned officers who, in spite of the pressure of the German authorities, refused to work in the German war industry had a very high conception of their patriotic duty. Their attempt to escape, therefore, created against them a kind of presumption of inadaptability to the Nazi order, and they had to be eliminated. Extermination of these elite assumed a systematic character from the beginning of 1944; and the responsibility of Keitel is unquestionably involved in this extermination, which he approved if he did not specifically order.

The document which the Tribunal has before it is a letter of protest by General Bérard, head of the French Delegation to the German Armistice Commission, addressed to the German General Vogl, the president of the said commission. It deals specifically with information reaching France concerning the extermination of escaped prisoners.

First paragraph, fourth line:

“This note reveals the existence of a German organization, independent of the Army, under whose authority escaped prisoners would come.”

This note was addressed on 29 April 1944 by the commandant of Oflag X-C. I read from Page 102:

“Captain Lussus”—declares General Bérard to the German Armistice Commission—“of Oflag X-C, and Lieutenant Girot, of the same Oflag, who had made an attempt to escape on 27 April 1944, were recaptured in the immediate vicinity by the camp guard.

“On 23 June 1944 the French senior officer of Oflag X-C received two funeral urns containing the ashes of these two officers. . . .”

No particulars could be given to this French officer as to the cause of the deaths of Captain Lussus and Lieutenant Girot. General Bérard pointed out at the same time to the German Armistice Commission that the note—which the Tribunal will find on Page 104—had been communicated by the commandant of Oflag X-C to the French senior officer at that Oflag:

“You will bring to the attention of your comrades the fact that there exists, for the control of people moving about unlawfully, a German organization whose field of action extends over regions in a state of war from Poland to the Spanish frontier. Each escaped prisoner who is recaptured and found in possession of civilian clothes, false papers and identification cards, and false photographs, falls under the authority of this organization. What becomes of him then, I cannot tell you. Warn your comrades that this matter is particularly serious.”

The last two lines of this note assumed their full significance when the urns containing the ashes of the two escaped French officers were handed to the senior officer of the camp.

Our Soviet colleagues of the Prosecution will present the conditions under which the escapes of the officers from the Sagan Camp were repressed.

THE PRESIDENT: Was there any answer to this complaint? What you have just been reading, as I understand it, is a complaint made by the French general, Bérard, to the German head of the Armistice Commission, is that right?

M. DUBOST: Mr. President, I do not know if there was an answer. I know only that the archives in Vichy at the time of the liberation were partly pillaged and partly destroyed through military action. If there was an answer we would have had it in the Vichy archives, for the documents we present now are the documents from the German archives of the German Armistice Commission. As to the French archives, I do not know what has become of them. In any case it is possible they may have disappeared as a result of military action.

I was about to inform the Tribunal that my Soviet colleagues would set forth the conditions under which repressive measures were carried out at the camp of Sagan for attempts to escape.

We submit as Exhibit Number RF-380, Document Number F-672, which the Tribunal will find on Page 115 of its document book. This is a report from the Service for War Prisoners and Deportees, dated 9 January 1946, which relates to the deportation to Buchenwald of 20 French prisoners of war. This report must be considered as an authentic document, as well as the reports of war prisoners which are annexed thereto. On Page 116 is the report of Claude Petit, former prisoners’ representative in Stalag VI-G.

“In September 1943 the French civilian workers in Germany and the French prisoners of war who had been converted”—that means converted into workers—“were deprived of all spiritual help, there being no priest among them. Lieutenant Piard, head chaplain of Stalag VI-G, after having spoken with the prisoners-of-war chaplain, Abbé Rodhain, decided to turn into workers six prisoner-of-war priests who volunteered to exercise their ministerial functions among the French civilians.

“This change in classification of priests was difficult to accomplish, as the Gestapo did not authorize the presence of chaplains among civilian workers. . . .”

These priests and a few scouts organized a scout group, and a group of Catholic Action.

On Page 117:

“From the beginning of 1944 the priests felt themselves being watched by the Gestapo in their various activities. . . .

“At the end of July 1944, the six priests were arrested almost simultaneously and taken to the prison of Brauweiler, near Cologne. . . .”

Page 118, the same happened to the scouts. I quote:

“Against this flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention I took numerous steps and made several protests; for the prisoners of war arrested by the Gestapo I even asked the reason for their arrest. . . .

“Owing to the rapid advance of the allies, who were approaching Aachen, all the prisoners of Brauweiler were taken to Cologne. . . .”

[Dr. Stahmer approached the lectern.]

M. DUBOST: Mr. President, before allowing the Defense Counsel to interrupt, permit me to finish reading this document.

THE PRESIDENT: Continue.

M. DUBOST: Thank you, Mr. President. With the end of this paragraph the Tribunal learns that the German military authorities themselves took steps in order to learn the fate of these prisoners:

“The military authorities having no knowledge thereof, immediately undertook correspondence with Buchenwald, correspondence which remained without answer.”

And again:

“At the beginning of March, Major Bramkamp, chief of the Abwehr group, had to go personally to Buchenwald. . . .”

On Pages 120-121 the Tribunal will find the list of the prisoners who thus disappeared.

On Page 122 there is a confirmation of this testimony by M. Souche, prisoners’ representative at Kommando 624, who writes:

“. . . certain war prisoners, converted into workers, and French civilian workers had organized in Cologne a Catholic Action group under the direction of the re-classified war-prisoner priests, Pannier and Cleton. . . .”

Finally, Page 123:

“. . . the arrests began with members of the Catholic Action”—and the accusations were—“anti-German maneuvers. . . .”

THE PRESIDENT: I do not know what Dr. Stahmer’s objection is.

DR. OTTO STAHMER (Counsel for Defendant Göring): We are not in a position to follow the exposé of the French Prosecutor. First of all, the translation is not very good. Some sentences are left out. Especially, wrong numbers are mentioned. For instance, 612 has been mentioned. I have it here. It is quite a different document. We have not the document books and therefore we cannot follow the page citations. Also my colleagues complain that they are not in a position to follow the proceedings under this manner of presentation.

THE PRESIDENT: May I see your document?

[The document was handed to the President.]

DR. STAHMER: This number was just mentioned, as can be confirmed by the other gentlemen.

THE PRESIDENT: The document which M. Dubost was reading was 672. The Document you have got there is a different number.

DR. STAHMER: But this was the number that came through to us, 612, and not only I, but the other gentlemen heard the same number. And not only this number, but all the numbers have been given incorrectly.

Another difficulty is that we have not the document book. Page 118 had been referred to, but the number of the page does not mean anything to us. We cannot follow at this rate.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, I think the trouble really arises from the fact that you give the numbers too fast and the numbers are very often wrongly translated, not only into German, but sometimes into English. It is very difficult for the interpreters to pick up all these numbers. First of all, you are giving the number of the document, then the number of the exhibit, then the page of the document book—and that means that the interpreters have got to translate many numbers spoken very quickly.

It is essential that the defendants should be able to follow the document; and as I understand it, they have not got the document books in the same shape we have. It is the only way we can follow. But we have them now in this particular document book by page, and therefore it is absolutely essential that you go slowly.

M. DUBOST: Mr. President, the document books, all the documents, have been handed to the Defense.

THE PRESIDENT: Are you telling us that document books have been handed to the Defense in the same shape they are handed to us, let us say, with pages on them? Speaking for myself, that is the only way I am able to follow the document. You mentioned Page 115 and that does show me where the document is. If I have not got that page, I should not be able to find the document.

M. DUBOST: Mr. President, I announced at the same time RF-380, which is the number of the exhibit. F-672 is the classification number. All our documents bear a classification number. It was not possible to hand to the Defense a document book paginated like the one the Tribunal has, for it is not submitted in the same language. It is submitted in German and the pages are not in the same place. There is not an absolute identity of pagination between the German document book and yours.

THE PRESIDENT: I am telling you the difficulties under which the defendants’ counsel are working, and if we had simply a number of documents without the pagination we should be under a similar difficulty. And it is a very great difficulty. Therefore you must go very slowly in giving the identification of the document.

M. DUBOST: I shall conform to the wishes of the Tribunal, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the document being read was Document F-672.

DR. STAHMER: We cannot find Document 672. We have 673. We have nothing but loose sheets, and we have to hunt through them first to find the number. We have Number 673, but we have not yet found Number 672 among our documents. It is very difficult for us to follow a citation, because it takes us so much time to find the numbers even if they have been mentioned correctly.

THE PRESIDENT: I can understand the difficulty. Will you continue, M. Dubost, and do as I say, going very slowly so as to give the defendants’ counsel, as far as possible, the opportunity to find the document. And I think that you ought to do something satisfactory, if possible, to make it possible for them to find that document—by pagination or some other letters. An index, for instance, giving the order in which the documents are set out.

M. DUBOST: Three days ago, two document books in French, paginated like the books which the Tribunal has before it, were handed to the Defense. We were able to hand only two to them, for reasons of a technical nature. But at the same time we handed to the Defense a sufficient number of documents in German to enable each Defense Counsel to have his file in German. Does the Tribunal ask me to collate the pages of the French document book which we submit to the Defense with the pages of a document book which we set up, when the Defense can do it and has the time to do it? Three days ago the two French document books were handed to the Defense. They had the possibility of comparing the French texts with the German texts to make sure that our translations were correct, and to prepare themselves for the sessions.

THE PRESIDENT: Go on, M. Dubost. As I say, do it slowly.

DR. STAHMER: It is not correct that we received it 3 days ago. We found this pile in our compartment yesterday evening. We simply have not had time to number these pages. As I say, this was in our compartment yesterday evening or this morning.

THE PRESIDENT: Let’s go on now, M. Dubost, and go slowly in describing the identification of the document.

M. DUBOST: We shall pass to Document F-357, which will be submitted as Exhibit Number RF-381. This document deals with the carrying out of general orders concerning the execution of prisoners of war. It contains the testimony of a German gendarme who was made prisoner on 25 May 1945, and who declares (Page 127):

“All prisoners of war, who had fallen into our hands in whatever circumstances, were to be slain by us instead of being handed over to the Wehrmacht as had been done hitherto.”

This concerned an order which was given in the middle of August 1944. The witness continues:

“This execution was to be carried out in a deserted spot.”

On Page 128, the same witness gives the names of Germans who had executed prisoners of war.

We shall now submit Document 1634-PS, which will become Exhibit Number RF-382. The Tribunal will find it on Page 129 in their document book. It is a document which has not yet been read. It relates to the murder of 129 American prisoners of war which was perpetrated by the German Army in a field in the southwest, and west of Baignes in Belgium, on 17 December 1944 during the German offensive.

The author of this report summarizes the facts. The American prisoners were brought together near the crossroad. A few soldiers, whose names are indicated, rushed across the field toward the west, hid among the trees in the high grass, in thickets, and ditches, and thus escaped the massacre of their companions. A few others who, at the moment when this massacre began, were in the proximity of a barn, were able to hide in it. They also are survivors.

Page 129:

“. . . the artillery and machine gun fire on the column of American vehicles continued for about 10 to 15 minutes, and then two German tanks and some armored cars came down the road from the direction of Weismes. Upon reaching the intersection, these vehicles turned south on the road toward St. Vith. The tanks directed machine gun fire into the ditch along the side of the road in which the American soldiers were crouching; and upon seeing this, the other American soldiers dropped their weapons and raised their hands over their heads. The surrendered American soldiers were then made to march back to the crossroad, and as they passed by some of the German vehicles on highway N-23, German soldiers on these vehicles took from the American prisoners of war such personal belongings as wrist watches, rings, and gloves. The American soldiers were then assembled on the St. Vith road in front of a house standing on the southwest corner of the crossroad. Other German soldiers, in tanks and armored cars, halted at the crossroad and also searched some of the captured Americans and took valuables from them. . . .”

Top of Page 131:

“. . . an American prisoner was questioned and taken with his other comrades to the crossroads just referred to.

“. . . at about this same time a German light tank attempted to maneuver itself into position on the road so that its cannon would be directed at the group of American prisoners gathered in the field approximately 20 to 25 yards from the road. . . .”

I again skip four lines.

“. . . some of these tanks stopped when they came opposite the field in which the unarmed American prisoners were standing in a group, with their hands up or clasped behind their heads. A German soldier, either an officer or a noncommissioned officer, in one of these vehicles which had stopped, got up, drew his revolver, took deliberate aim and fired into the group of American prisoners. One of the American soldiers fell. This was repeated a second time and another American soldier in the group fell to the ground. At about the same time, from two of the vehicles on the road, fire was opened on the group of American prisoners in the field. All, or most, of the American soldiers dropped to the ground and stayed there while the firing continued, for 2 or 3 minutes. Most of the soldiers in the field were hit by this machine gun fire. The German vehicles then moved off toward the south and were followed by more vehicles which also came from the direction of Weismes. As these latter vehicles came opposite the field in which the American soldiers were lying, they also fired with small arms from the moving vehicles at the prostrate bodies in the field. . . .”

Page 132:

“. . . some German soldiers, evidently from the group of those who were on guard at the crossroad, then walked to the group of the wounded American prisoners who were still lying on the ground in the field . . . and shot with pistol or rifle, or clubbed with a rifle butt or other heavy object, any of the American soldiers who still showed any sign of life. In some instances, American prisoners were evidently shot at close range, squarely between the eyes, in the temple, or the back of the head. . . .”

This deed constitutes an act of pure terrorism, the shame of which will remain on the German Army, for nothing justified this. These prisoners were unarmed and had surrendered.

The Tribunal authorized me yesterday to present the documents on which the French accusation is based for establishing the guilt of Göring, Keitel, Jodl, Bormann, Frank, Rosenberg, Streicher, Schirach, Hess, Frick, the OKW, OKH, OKL, the Reich Cabinet, and the Nazi Leadership Corps, as well as of the SS and the Gestapo, for atrocities committed in the camps. I shall be very brief. I have very few new documents to present.

The first concerns Kaltenbrunner. It is the American Document L-35 which the Tribunal will find on Page 246 of the document book concerning concentration camps, that is the second book. This document has not been submitted. It is the testimony of Rudolf Mildner, Doctor of Law, Colonel of the Police, who declares:

“The internment orders were signed by the Chief of the Sipo and SD, Dr. Kaltenbrunner, or, as deputy by the head of Amt IV, SS Gruppenführer Müller.”

In submitting this it becomes Exhibit Number RF-383 (bis).

Concerning Göring we submit the American Document 343-PS, Exhibit Number RF-384. This is a letter from Field Marshal Milch to Wolff. This letter concludes with this phrase:

“I express to the SS the special thanks of the Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe for the aid they have rendered.”

Now, from what precedes, one can conclude that these thanks refer to the biological experiments of Dr. Rascher. Thus, Göring is involved in these.

The German SS Medical Corps is implicated. This one can gather from Document 1635-PS, which has not yet been handed to the Tribunal, which becomes Exhibit Number RF-385, and which the Tribunal will find in the annex of the second document book. These are extracts from reviews of microscopic and anatomical research. They deal with experiments made on persons who died suddenly, although in good health. The circumstances of their death are stated by the experimenters in such a way that no reader can be in any doubt as to the conditions under which they were put to death.

With the permission of the Tribunal, I shall read a few brief extracts. Page 132 of the document which we submit to the Tribunal:

“The thyroid glands of 21 persons between 20 and 40 years of age, who were in supposedly good health and who suddenly died, were examined.

“The persons in question, 19 men and 2 women, until their death lived for several months under identical conditions, also with regard to food. The last food taken consisted chiefly of carbohydrates.

“Replacement products and examination methods:”—that is the title.

“Over a considerable period, substance for experiments was taken from the livers of 24 adults in good health, who suddenly died between 5 and 6 o’clock in the morning.”

On examining these documents, as well as the originals, the Tribunal will see that German medical literature is very rich in experiments carried out on “adults in good health who died suddenly between 5 and 6 o’clock in the morning.”

No one in Germany could be deceived as to the conditions under which these deaths occurred, since the accounts of the SS doctors’ experiments in the camps were printed and published.

One of the last documents is F-185(b), and (a), relative to an experiment with poisoned bullets carried out on 11 August 1944, in the presence of SS Sturmbannführer Dr. Ding and Dr. Widmann—Page 187 of the second document book concerning concentration camps. These two documents are submitted as Exhibit Numbers RF-386 and RF-387. The Tribunal will find the description of this experiment, in which the victims are described as persons sentenced to death.

THE PRESIDENT: The document has been read already, I think.

M. DUBOST: It is a document from the French archives. However, Mr. President, I doubt whether the Tribunal has heard Document F-185(b), Exhibit RF-386, which is the opinion of the French professor, M. May, Fellow of Surgery, to whom the pseudo-scientific documents to which I alluded just now were submitted—the reports from scientific reviews of experiments. He wrote, Page 222:

“The wickedness and the stupidity of the experimenters amazed us. The symptoms of aconitine nitrate poisoning have been known from time immemorial. This poison is sometimes employed by certain savage tribes to poison their war arrows. But one has never heard of them writing observations in a pretentious style, on the anticipated result of their experiments—observations which are completely inadequate and puerile—nor that they would have them signed by a ‘Doz,’ that is to say, a professor.”

We now submit Document F-278(a) as Exhibit Number RF-388. It involves Keitel. It is a letter signed: “By order of the High Command of the Wehrmacht, Dr. Lehmann.” It is dated 17 February 1942 and is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and it implicates him. It concerns the regime in the internment camps:

“Delinquents brought to Germany in application of the decree of the Führer are to have no communication of any kind with the outside world. They must, therefore, neither write themselves, nor receive letters, packages, or visits. The letters, packages, and visits are to be refused with the remark that all communication with the outside world is forbidden.”

The High Command gives its point of view in a letter of 31 January 1942, according to which there can be no question of Belgian lawyers being permitted for Belgian prisoners.

We now submit Document 682-PS, which becomes Exhibit Number RF-389, Page 134 of the second document book. This document implicates the German Government and the Reich Cabinet. It is a record of a conversation between Dr. Goebbels and Thierack, Minister of Justice, in Berlin, on 14 September 1942, from 1300 hours to 1415 hours.

“With regard to the destruction of asocial life, Dr. Goebbels is of the opinion that the following should be exterminated: All Jews and Gypsies, Poles having to serve 3-4 years of penal servitude, and Czechs and Germans sentenced to death, to penal servitude for life, or to security custody (Sicherungsverwahrung). The idea of exterminating them by work is the best. . . .”

We stress this last phrase which shows, even in the heart of the German Government itself, the will to “exterminate by work.”

The last document that we shall submit with regard to the concentration camps is Document F-662, which becomes Exhibit Number RF-390, Pages 77 and 78, second document book. This document is the testimony of M. Poutiers, living in Paris, Place de Breteuil, who points out that the internees in the detachments of Mauthausen-Ebens worked under the direct control of civilians, the SS dealing only with the guarding of the prisoners. This witness, who was in numerous work units, states that all were ordered and controlled by civilians and only supervised by the SS and that the inhabitants of the country, as the internees went to and from their work and while at work, could therefore observe their misery; which confirms the testimony which has already been given before the Tribunal during these last few days.

We shall summarize the increasing advance of the German criminal policy in the West: At the beginning of the occupation, violation of Article 50 of the Hague Convention; execution of hostages, but creation of a pseudo “law of hostages” to legalize these executions in the eyes of the occupied countries.

In the years that follow, contempt for the rights of the human individual increases, until it becomes complete in the last months of the occupation. By that time arbitrary imprisonment, parodies of trials, or executions without trial have become daily practice.

The sentences, the Tribunal will remember, were not put into effect in cases of acquittal or pardon; people acquitted by German tribunals, who should have been set at liberty, were deported and died in concentration camps.

At the same time there developed and grew in strength the organization of Frenchmen who remained on the soil of France and refused to let their country die. At this stage German terrorism was intensified against them ever increasingly. What follows is the description of the terrorist repression carried out by the Germans against the patriots of the west of Europe, against what was called the “Resistance,” without giving this word any other meaning than its generic sense.

From the time Germany understood that her policy of collaboration was doomed to defeat, that her policy of hostages only exasperated the fury of the people whom she was trying to subdue; instead of modifying her policy with regard to the citizens of the occupied countries, she reinforced the terror which already reigned there and tried to justify it by saying it was an anti-Communist campaign.

The Tribunal will recall Keitel’s order and will understand what was thought of this pretext. All the French, all the citizens of Europe without distinction, without any distinction of party, profession, religion, or race, were involved in the resistance against Germany and their heroes were mingled in the graves and in the collective charnel houses into which the Germans threw them after their extermination.

But this confusion was voluntary; it was calculated; it justified to a certain degree the arbitrary measures of repression of which we already had evidence in Document F-278, which we submit under Number RF-391. It is dated 12 January 1943, and is signed “Von Falkenhausen.”

“Persons who are found, without valid authorization, in possession of explosives and military firearms, pistols of all kinds, submachine guns, rifles, et cetera, with ammunition, are liable in future to be shot immediately without trial.”

This order and others analogous to it continued to be executed even after the allied landing in the west of Europe. These orders were even carried out against organized forces in Belgium as well as in France, although the Germans themselves considered these forces as troops to a certain extent. This can be verified by reference to Document F-673, submitted under Exhibit Number RF-392, entitled “Terrorist action against patriots.”

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps this would be a convenient time to break off.

[A recess was taken.]

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, M. Dubost.

M. DUBOST: The document I have just submitted under Exhibit Number RF-392 is a memorandum to the Wiesbaden Commission. We read the following:

“The action of the German troops, even if we admit the truth of the facts presented by the French, is taking place in the form of combat by far exceeding in scope any purely police action against isolated outlaws. On the enemy side we have organizations which absolutely refuse to accept the sovereignty of the French Government of Vichy and which from the point of view of numbers as well as of armament and command should almost be designated as troops. It has been reiterated that these revolutionary units consider themselves as being a part of the forces fighting against Germany.

“General Eisenhower has described the terrorists who are fighting in France as troops under his command. It is against such troops”—on the original is written in red pencil “unfortunately not only”—“that repressive measures are directed.”

This document shows us that when in action the French Forces of the Interior, as well as all French forces in the western occupied countries, were considered as troops by the German Army.

THE PRESIDENT: I see that it may be useful for the record. It is in the document book on the extermination of innocent populations, on Page 167.

M. DUBOST: I thank you, Mr. President. Are then these patriots, who were consequently considered by the German Army as constituting regular troops, treated as soldiers? No.

The order of Falkenhausen is proof thereof. They were either to be killed on the spot—and, after all, that is the fate of a combatant—or else delivered to the Sipo, to the SD, and tortured to death by these organisms, who dispensed with any legal formalities, as is shown by Document 835-PS, which has already been submitted under Number USA-527, and also by Document F-673, Page 6 in your document book, which we submit under Exhibit Number RF-392.

Document Number F-673 is a considerable bundle of papers which comes from the archives of the German Commission at Wiesbaden, and we are submitting it in its entirety under Exhibit Number RF-392. Whenever we refer to Document F-673, it will be one of the documents in this big German book.

“Letter from the Führer’s headquarters, 18 August 1944, 30 copies; copy 26; top secret.

“Subject: Combatting terrorists and saboteurs in occupied territories . . . . 2. Jurisdiction over non-German civilians in occupied territories.

“1) Enclosed herewith”—says the writer of this letter—“we are transmitting a copy of the order of the Führer of 30 July 1944. . . .”

This order of the Führer will be found on Page 9 of your document book. Paragraph 3.

“I therefore order the troops and every individual member of the Wehrmacht, the SS, and the police to shoot immediately on the spot terrorists and saboteurs who are caught in the act . . . .

“2) Whoever is captured later is to be transferred to the nearest local office of the Security Police and of the SD.

“3) Sympathizers, particularly women, who do not take an actual part in hostilities, are to be assigned to work.”

We know what that means. We know the regime of labor in concentration camps. But I shall proceed with reading the text of the covering letter of this order of the Führer, Paragraph 4. This paragraph is a commentary on the order itself:

“Present legal proceedings relating to any act of terror or sabotage or any other crime committed by non-German civilians in the occupied territories, which endanger the security or the readiness for battle of the occupying power, are to be suspended. Indictments are to be withdrawn. The carrying out of sentences is not to be imposed. The accused and the records are to be turned over to the nearest local office of the Security Police and SD.”

This order, to be transmitted to all commanding officers, as indicated on Page 7, is accompanied by one last comment, Page 8, the penultimate paragraph:

“Non-German civilians in the occupied territories who endanger the security or readiness for battle of the occupying power in a manner other than through acts of terrorism and sabotage are to be turned over to the SD.”

This order is signed by Keitel.

By this comment, Keitel has associated himself in spirit with the order of his Führer. He has brought about the execution of numerous individuals, for an order to kill without control any one suspected of being a terrorist affects not only the terrorists but the innocent and affects the innocent more than the terrorists. Moreover, Keitel’s comment exceeds even Hitler’s own orders. Keitel applied Hitler’s stipulation—on Page 9 of your document book—to a hypothetical case which had not been foreseen, to wit:

“Acts committed by non-German civilians in occupied territories which endanger the security or readiness for battle, of the occupying power.”

This is on the general’s own initiative. It is a political act which has nothing to do with the conduct of war. It is a political act which compromises and involves him. It makes him participate in the development and extension of the Hitlerian policy; for it is the interpretation of an order from Hitler, within the spirit of the order perhaps, but beyond its scope.

Instructions were given to the Sipo and the SD to execute without judgment. These instructions were carried out. Document F-574 on Page 10 of your document book, submitted as Exhibit Number RF-393, is the testimony of a certain Goldberg, an adjutant to the Sicherheitspolizei in Chalon-sur-Saône before the liberation of that city. He was captured by the patriots and interrogated by the divisional commissioner, who was head of the regional judicial police officials at Dijon. The Defense will certainly not accuse us of having had him examined by a subordinate police officer. It was the chief himself of the judicial police officials for the Dijon region who interrogated this witness. The witness declared, Page 12:

“At the end of May 1944, without my having seen any written order on this subject, the Sicherheitspolizei of Chalon were given the right to pronounce capital punishment and to have the sentence executed without those concerned having appeared before a tribunal and without the case having been submitted for approval to the commander at Dijon. The chief of the SD in Chalon, that is Krüger, had all necessary authority to make such decisions. There was no opposition, so far as I know, on the part of the SD of Dijon. I therefore conclude that this procedure was regular and was the consequence of instructions which were not officially communicated to me but which emanated from higher authorities.”

Execution was carried out by members of the SD. Their names are given by the witness, but they are not of particular interest to this Tribunal, which is only concerned with the punishment of the principal criminals—those who gave the orders and from whom the orders emanated.

How were these orders applied in the various countries of the West? In Holland, according to the testimony found in the report given by the Dutch Government, Page 15, I quote:

“About 3 days after the attempt against Rauter—about 10 March 1945—I witnessed the execution of several Dutch patriots by the German ‘green’ police while I was working in the fields in Waltrop.”

This Dutch document is classified in the French file as Number F-224 (Document F-224 (a), Exhibit RF-277) and has been submitted to you in its entirety, but the specific passage to which I refer has not been read. The witness continues, on Page 16 of your document book:

“I spoke to an Oberwachtmeister of the ‘green’ police whose name is unknown to me, and he told me that this execution was in revenge for the attempt against Rauter. He told me also that hundreds of Dutch ‘terrorists’ had been executed for similar reasons.”

Another witness stated:

“About 6 o’clock in the evening”—this is the German who gave the orders to execute the Dutch patriots—“when I went to my office, I received the order to have 40 prisoners shot.”

On Page 19, the investigators, who are Canadian officers, state the conditions under which the corpses were discovered. I do not believe that the Tribunal will want me to read this passage.

On Page 21 the Tribunal will find the report of Munt, completing and rectifying his report of 4 June on the execution of Dutchmen after the attempt against Rauter.

The execution was carried out on the order of Kolitz; 198 prisoners were transported. Munt denies having sanctioned the execution of these Dutch patriots, but says that it was nevertheless impossible for him to prevent it, in view of the orders from higher sources which he had received.

On Page 22, next to the last paragraph, the same Munt states:

“After an attack against two members of the Wehrmacht on two consecutive days, in which both were wounded and their rifles taken away, my chief insisted that 15 Dutch citizens be shot; 12 were shot.”

An important document is to be found on Page 30 in your document book. It is included in F-224, which comprises the documents relative to inquiries made by the Dutch Government. This is a decree concerning the proclamation of summary police justice for the occupied Netherlands territory. It is signed by the Defendant Seyss-Inquart. Therefore one has to go to him when seeking for the chief responsibility for these summary executions of patriots in Holland.

From this decree we take Paragraph 1:

“. . . I proclaim, for the occupied Netherlands territory in its entirety, summary police justice which shall enter into force immediately.

“Simultaneously, I order that everyone abstain from any kind of agitation which might disturb public order and the security of public life.”

I skip a paragraph.

“The senior SS and Police Leader will take every step deemed necessary by him for the maintenance or restoration of public order or the security of public life.

“In the execution of his task the senior SS and Police Leader may deviate from the law in force.”

Summary police justice! These words do not deceive us. This is purely and simply a matter of murder, in that the police is authorized in executing its functions to deviate from the law in force. This sentence, which Seyss-Inquart signed and which protected his subordinates who assassinated Dutch, patriots as far as German law was concerned, is in itself the condemnation of Seyss-Inquart.

In execution of this decree the Tribunal will see that on 2 May—and this is Page 32 of your document book—a summary police tribunal pronounced the death sentence against ten Dutch patriots. On Page 34, another summary police tribunal pronounced the death sentence on ten other Dutch patriots. All of them were executed. On the next page, still in application of the same decree, a summary police court pronounced the death sentence on a patriot, and he was executed.

This document, Document F-224(a), Exhibit RF-277, comprises a very long list of similar texts which seems to me superfluous to cite. The Tribunal may refer to the last only, which is especially interesting. We will consider it for a moment; it is on Page 46 of your document book. This is the report of the Identification and Investigation Service of the Netherlands, according to which, while it was not possible to make known at that time the number of Dutch citizens who were shot by the military units of the occupying power, we can state now that a total of more than 4,000 of them were executed. The details of the executions, with the places where the corpses were discovered, follow.

This constitutes only a very fragmentary aspect of the sufferings and the sacrifices in human life endured by Holland. That needs to be stated because it is the consequence of the criminal orders of the Defendant Seyss-Inquart.

In the case of Belgium, the basic document is the French Document F-685, submitted as Exhibit Number RF-394; and you will find it on Page 48 of your document book. It is a report drawn up by the Belgian War Crimes Commission, which deals only with the crimes committed by the German troops at the time of the liberation of Belgian territory, September 1944. These crimes were all committed against Belgian patriots who were fighting against the German Army. It is not merely a question of executions but of ill-treatment and torture as well. Page 50:

“At Graide a camp of the secret army was attacked. 15 corpses were discovered to have been frightfully mutilated. The Germans had used bullets with sawn off tips. Some of the bodies had been pierced with bayonets. Two of the prisoners had been beaten with cudgels before being finished off with a pistol shot.”

The prisoners were soldiers, taken with weapons in hand and in battle, belonging to those units which officially, according to the testimony in documents previously cited to you, were considered by the German General Staff from that time on as being combatants.

“At Fôret, on 6 September, several hundred men of the resistance were billeted in the Château de Forêt. The Germans, having been warned of their going into action, decided to carry out a repressive operation. A certain number of unarmed members of the resistance tried to flee. Some were killed; others succeeded in getting back to the castle, not having been able to break through the cordon of German troops; others were finally made prisoner.

“The Germans advanced with the resistance prisoners in front of them. After 2 hours the fighting stopped for lack of ammunition. The Germans promised to spare the lives of those who surrendered. Some of the prisoners were loaded on a lorry; others, in spite of the promise given, were massacred after having been tortured. The castle and the corpses were sprinkled with gasoline and set on fire: 20 men perished in this massacre; 15 others had been killed during combat.”

The examples are numerous. This testimony to heroic Belgium was necessary. It was necessary that we should be reminded of what we owe her, of what we owe to her combatants of the secret army, and how great their sacrifice has been.

With regard to Luxembourg, we have a document from the Ministry of Justice of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, which is Document Number UK-77, already submitted under Exhibit Number RF-322, which the Tribunal will find on Page 53 of the document book.

The Tribunal will note that a special summary tribunal, similar to those which functioned in Holland, was set up in Luxembourg; that it functioned in that country and pronounced a certain number of death sentences, 21—all of them equally arbitrary, in view of the arbitrary character of the tribunal which pronounced them.

The document contains the official indictment of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg against all the members of the Reich Cabinet, specifically against the Ministers of the Interior, of Justice, and the Party Chancellery, and against the leaders of the SS and Police, and especially against the Reich Commissioner for the Preservation of German Nationality.

In the case of Norway, Document UK-79 already submitted under Exhibit Number RF-323, Page 55 of the document book, shows that tribunals similar to the special tribunal set up in Holland by the police were in operation in Norway. They were called the SS tribunals. More than 150 Norwegians were condemned to death. Besides, the Tribunal will remember the testimony of M. Cappelen, who gave an account of what his country and his compatriots had endured.

Regarding Denmark, on Page 57 of your document book, Document Number F-666, already submitted as Exhibit Number RF-338, the Tribunal will note that according to this official report of the Danish Government police courts-martial similar to those which functioned in Luxembourg, in Norway, and in Holland, functioned against Danish patriots. These summary police tribunals, composed of SS or police, in reality disguised the arbitrary measures of the police and of the SS; measures not only tolerated, but willed by the government, as can be shown by documents which we placed before you at the beginning of this statement.

We, therefore, can assert that the victims of those tribunals were murdered without having been able to justify or defend themselves.

In the case of France the question should be carefully examined. The Tribunal knows that from the moment of the landing, answering the call of the General Staff, the French Secret Army rose and began battle. Undoubtedly, in spite of the warning given by the Allied General Staff, these combatants, who a few weeks later were officially recognized by the German side as being combatants, at the beginning found themselves in a rather irregular situation. We do not contest that in many instances they were francs-tireurs; we admit that they could be condemned to death; but we protest because they were not condemned to death, but were murdered after having been brutally tortured. We are going to give you proof thereof.

Document F-577, which is submitted under Exhibit Number RF-395, to be found on Page 62 of your document book, states that on 17 August, the day before the liberation of Rodez, the Germans shot 30 patriots with a submachine gun. Then, to finish them off, they tore large stones from the wall of the trench in which they were and hurled them on the bodies with some earth. The chests and the skulls were crushed.

Document F-580, Page 79 of your document book, which is submitted to you as Exhibit Number RF-396, shows that five oblates from the order of Marie—as far as I know these lay brothers were not communists—were murdered after having been tortured, because they belonged to a group of the Secret Army. In all, 36 corpses were discovered after this execution, a “punitive measure” carried out by the German Army.

On Page 85 the Tribunal will read the result of the inquiry and will see under what conditions these 5 monks were killed after having been tortured and under what conditions the staff of a resistance group, which had been betrayed, was arrested and deported, together with a few members of the same religious order.

Evidence is produced that men from the Maquis in the forest of Achères were arrested and tortured after having been incarcerated in the prison of Fontainebleau. We even know the name of the German member of the Gestapo who tortured these patriots. His name is unimportant—this German, Korf, carried out orders that were given by Keitel and by the other defendants whose names I mentioned just now.

Document F-584, submitted under Exhibit Number RF-397, Pages 87 and 88, shows the Tribunal that when the bodies were found it was discovered that 10 of them had been blindfolded before being shot, that 8 had had their arms broken by injury or torture, and many had wounds in the lower parts of their legs as the result of being very tightly bound. That is the report of the commissioner of the police at Pau, drawn up on 28 August 1944, on the day following the liberation of Pau.

We now submit Document F-585 as Exhibit Number RF-398. The Tribunal will find it on Page 96 of the document book. I will give a summary:

The day following the liberation, 38 corpses were found in two graves near Signes in the mountain of Var. One of the leaders of the Resistance of the Côte d’Azur, Valmy, and with him two parachutists, Pageot and Manuel, were identified. Of this massacre a witness was found—his name is Tuirot—whose statements are copied on Pages 105, 106, and 107 of your document book.

Tuirot was tortured, with his comrades, without having been given the opportunity of help from a counsel or a chaplain. The 38 men were taken to the woods. They appeared before a parody of a tribunal composed of SS. They were condemned to death and the sentence was executed.

We place now before the Tribunal Document F-586 as Exhibit Number RF-399. The Tribunal will find it on Page 110 of the document book. It deals with the execution at Saint Nazaire and Royans of 37 patriots, members of the French Secret Army, who were tortured before being executed. Here is the statement of facts by an eyewitness:

“I came through the ruins and arrived at the Château of Madame Laurent, a widow. There a frightful spectacle confronted me. The castle, which the Gestapo had used as a place of torture for the young Maquis, had been set on fire. In a cellar there was the calcinated skeleton which prior to death had had its forearms and a foot pulled off and which had perhaps been burned while still alive.”

But I proceed. Wherever the Gestapo was in operation there were the same methods.

Now we place before the Tribunal Document F-699, which relates to the murder at Grenoble of 48 members of the Secret Army all of whom were tortured. This document is submitted as Exhibit Number RF-400.

I now come to Document F-587, which we submit as Exhibit Number RF-401. The Tribunal will find this document on Page 115 of the document book. It concerns the execution by hanging of 12 patriots at Nîmes, 2 of whom were dragged from the hospital where they were under care for wounds received in battle. These young men had all been captured in combat at St. Hippolyte-du-Fort. The bodies of these wretched men had been defiled. On their chests was a placard saying: “Thus are French terrorists punished.” When the French authorities wished to perform funeral rites for these unfortunate men, the bodies had disappeared. The German Army had removed them. They have never been discovered. It is a fact that two of these victims were dragged from the hospital. Document F-587 contains particularly the report of a witness who saw the men taken from the hospital ward where they were being cared for.

I now submit Document F-561 as Exhibit Number RF-402—Page 118 of your book. It deals with the execution at Lyons of 109 patriots who were shot under inhuman conditions. They were killed at the end of a day’s toil. On 14 August Allied planes had bombed the Bron airfield. From 16 to 22 August the German authorities had employed requisitioned civilians and prisoners from the Fort of Montluc at Lyons to fill the bomb craters. At the end of the day, when the work was finished, the civilian laborers went away; but the prisoners were shot on the spot after having been more or less ill-treated. Their bodies were stacked in half-filled craters.

Document F-591, which we submit as Exhibit Number RF-403, Page 119 of the document book, is a report of atrocities committed by the German Army on 30 August 1944 at Tavaux (Aisne):

“During the afternoon of that day soldiers of the Adolf Hitler Division arrived at Tavaux. They appeared at the home of M. Maujean, who was leader of the resistance. His wife opened the door. Without explanation they shot at her, wounding her in the thigh and also in the lower jaw. They dragged her to the kitchen and broke one arm and one leg in the presence of her children, aged 9, 8, 7, and 6 years, and 8 months. They poured inflammable liquid over Madame Maujean and set fire to her in front of the children. The elder son held his little sister, 8 months old, in his arms. Then they told the children that they would shoot them if they did not tell them where their father was. The children said nothing, although they knew the whereabouts of their father. Before leaving they took the children to the cellar and locked them in. Then the Germans poured gasoline on the house and set it on fire. The fire was put out and the children were saved. These facts were told to M. Maujean by his eldest child. No other person was a witness to these facts because the inhabitants, frightened by the first houses set on fire, had sought refuge either in trenches or in the neighboring fields and woods.

“During the same evening 21 persons were killed at Tavaux and 83 houses were set on fire.”

Next comes a report by the gendarme, Carlier, on the events of the following day.

Document F-589, which we submit as Exhibit Number RF-404, shows the number of murders of patriots committed in the region of Lyons. It is dated 29 September 1944: 713 victims were found in 8 departments; 217 only have been identified. This figure is approximate; it is definitely less than the number of people who are missing in the 8 departments of Ain, Ardèche, Drôme, Isère, Loire, Rhône, Savoie, and Haute Savoie.

A German general, General Von Brodowski, confessed in his diary, which fell into our hands, that he had caused the murder of numerous patriots, and that the Wehrmacht, Police, and SS operated together and were responsible for these murders. These troops murdered wounded men in the hospital camps of the French forces of the interior. This document, which is under Number F-257, is submitted as Exhibit Number RF-405 and is to be found on Page 123 of your document book. In the last four paragraphs the police and the army combine:

“I have been charged with restoring the authority of the Army of Occupation in the Department of Cantal and neighboring regions.”

Dated 6 June 1944:

“General Jesser had been charged with the tactical direction of the undertaking. All troops available for the operation will be subordinate to him, as well as all other forces.

“The Commander of the Sipo and of the SD, Hauptsturmführer Geissler, remains at my immediate disposal; he will submit to me proposals for a possible utilization”—and so forth.

“The staff and two battalions of the SS Panzer Division ‘Das Reich’ are, in addition, to remain available for the operation in Cantal.”

General Brodowski turned over to the SD (which is equivalent to execution without trial) the French prisoners who were wounded on 15 June 1944. The Prefect of Le Puy asked the liaison staff whether the men wounded in the battle of Montmouchet and taken into safety by the Red Cross of Puy could be delivered to Puy as prisoners of war. This German general, executing the orders of the German High Command—particularly of Keitel and Jodl—said that those wounded men were to be treated as francs-tireurs and to be delivered to the SD or to the Abwehr. Those wounded men were turned over to the German Police and tortured and killed without trial.

According to the statement of Goldberg, which I have submitted, any man turned over to the SD was executed. Events took place on 21 June 1944 as indicated by Goldberg, “Twelve suspects were arrested and turned over to the SD.”

Under the date of 16 August 1944, Page 133, this general of the German Army had 40 men murdered after the battles at Bourg-Lastic and at Cosnat:

“In the course of operation Jesser, on 15 July 1944 in the Bourg-Lastic region, 23 persons were executed. Martial law. Attack on Cosnat; 3 kilometers east of St. Hilaire, during the night of 17 July, 40 terrorists were shot.”

On Page 136, this German general admits in his own diary that our comrades were fighting as soldiers and not as assassins. This general of the German Army acknowledges that the French Forces of the Interior took prisoners:

“Southeast of d’Argenton, 30 kilometers southwest of Châteauroux, the ‘Jako’ discovered a center of terrorists; 16 German soldiers were liberated; arms and ammunition were captured; 7 terrorists were killed, 2 of them being captains. One German soldier was seriously wounded.”

Another similar incident is also related further on:

“Discovery of two camps of terrorists in the region of d’Argenton. Nine enemies were killed, two of whom were officers; 16 German soldiers were liberated.”

At the bottom of the page he states, “We liberated two SS men.”

These French soldiers were entitled to the respect of their adversaries. They conducted themselves as soldiers; they were assassinated.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now until two o’clock.

[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]

Afternoon Session

MARSHAL: May it please the Court, I desire to announce that the Defendants Kaltenbrunner and Seyss-Inquart will be absent from this afternoon’s session on account of illness.

M. DUBOST: We had arrived, gentlemen, at the presentation of the terrorist policy carried out by the German Army, Police, and SS, indistinguishably united in their evil task against the French patriots. Not only the militant patriots were to be the victims of this terrorist policy. There were threats of reprisals against their relatives, and these threats were carried into effect.

We submit Document 719-PS as Exhibit Number RF-406, which you will find on Page 147 of the document book. It is the copy of a teletype from the German Embassy in Paris to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Berlin. The German Ambassador reports a conversation which the Vichy unit had had with Laval.

The author of this message, who is probably Abetz, explains that Bousquet, who was with Laval at the time of this conversation, stated that he was completely ignorant of the recent flight of Giraud’s brother:

“Madame Giraud, three of her daughters, her mother, another brother and the daughter-in-law of Giraud, were in Vals-les-Bains. I replied that such measures were insufficient and that he must not be surprised if the German police some day reverted to sterner measures, in view of the obvious incompetence of the French police in numerous cases.”

The threat was put into execution. We have already stated that the family of General Giraud were deported.

We submit Document F-717 under Exhibit Number RF-407, Page 149 of your document book: “Paris, 1030 hours, 101, Official Government Telegram, Paris, to the French Delegation of the IMT Nuremberg.”

From this telegram it is evident that 17 persons, members of the family of General Giraud, were deported to Germany. Madame Granger, daughter of General Giraud, aged 32, was arrested without cause in Tunis in April 1943, as well as her four children, aged 2 to 11 years, with their young nurse, and her brother-in-law, M. Granger. The family of General Giraud was also arrested, on 9 October 1943. They were first deported to Berlin, then to Thuringia.

May I ask the forbearance of the Tribunal; the telegraphic style does not lend itself to interpretation, “Sent first to Berlin and then to Thuringia; women and children of M. Granger to Dachau.” (I suppose that we must understand this to mean the wife of M. Granger and the nurse who accompanied her.)

THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, what is the document?

M. DUBOST: This is a French official telegram. You have the original before you, Mr. President, “—101—Official State Telegram Paris,” typed on the text of the telegram itself.

THE PRESIDENT: Can we receive a telegram from anybody addressed to the Tribunal?

M. DUBOST: Mr. President, it is not addressed to the Tribunal; it is addressed to the French Delegation. It is an official telegram from the French Government in Paris, “Official State Paris,” and it was transmitted as an official telegram.

THE PRESIDENT: What does “IMT Paris” mean?

M. DUBOST: The International Military Tribunal in Paris. It is our office in Paris at Place Vendôme—it is an office of the French Ministry of Justice. The telegram begins, “General Giraud.” It is a telegraphic declaration. The letters “OFF” at the beginning of the telegram mean “Official.” Please forgive me for insisting that the three letters “OFF” at the beginning of the telegram mean “Government, official” from Paris. No French telegraph office could transmit such a telegram if it did not come from an official authority. This official authority is the French Delegation of the IMT in Paris, which received the statement made by General Giraud and transmitted it to us: “By General Giraud, French Delegation of the IMT.”

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will receive the document under Article 21 of the Charter.

M. DUBOST: I am grateful to the Tribunal. I read further on, at Page 150:

“On the other hand, the death of Madame Granger on 24 September 1943 is undoubtedly due to lack of care and medicine, in spite of her reiterated requests for both. After an autopsy of her body, which took place in the presence of a French doctor, specially summoned from Paris after her death, authorization was given to this doctor, Dr. Claque to bring the four children back to France, and then to Spain, where they would be handed over to their father. This was refused by the Gestapo in Paris, and the children were sent back to Germany as hostages, where their grandmother found them only 6 months later.”

The last four lines:

“The health of Madame Giraud, her daughter Marie Theresa, and two of her grandchildren has been gravely impaired by the physical, and particularly by the moral, hardships of their deportation.”

As a reprisal for the escape of General Giraud, 17 persons were arrested, all innocent of his escape.

I have frequently shown that in their determination to impose their reign of terror the Germans resorted to means which revolt the conscience of decent people. Of these means one of the most repugnant is the call for informers.

Document F-278(b), Page 152, which we submit as Exhibit Number RF-408, is a reproduction of an ordinance of 20 December 1941, which is so obviously contrary to international law that the Foreign Ministry of the Reich itself took cognizance of it. The ordinance of 27 December 1941 prescribes the following:

“Whosoever may have knowledge that arms are in the possession or keeping of an unauthorized person or persons is obliged to declare that at the nearest police headquarters.”

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Berlin, on 29 June 1942, objected to the draft of a reply to the French note, which we do not have here but which must have been a protest against this ordinance of 27 December 1941. The Tribunal knows that in the military operations which accompanied the liberation of our land many archives disappeared, and therefore we cannot make known to the Tribunal the protest to which the note of 29 June 1942, from the German Foreign Ministry refers.

Paragraph 2 summarizes the arguments of the French protest. The French evidently had written: If German territory were occupied by the French, we would certainly consider as a man without honor any German who denounced to the occupying power an infraction of their laws, and this point of view was taken up and adopted by the German Foreign Ministry. The note continues:

“As a result of consideration of this matter, the Foreign Office considers it questionable whether punishment should be inflicted on whomsoever fails to denounce a person possessing or known to possess arms. Such a prescription of penalty under this general form is, in the opinion of the Foreign Office, the more impracticable in that it would offer the French the possibility of calling attention to the fact that the German Army is demanding of them acts which would be considered Criminal if committed by German citizens.”

This German note, I repeat, comes from the Reich Ministry of Foreign Affairs and is signed “Strack.” There is no more severe condemnation of the German Army than that expressed by the Reich Ministry of Foreign Affairs itself. The reply of the German Army will be found by the Tribunal on Page 155, “Berlin. 8 December 1942. High Command of the Wehrmacht.” The High Command of the Wehrmacht concludes:

“. . . since it does not seem desirable to enter into discussion with the French Government on the questions of law evoked by them, we too consider it appropriate not to reply to the French note.”

This note begins, moreover, by asserting that any relaxing of the orders given would be considered as a sign of weakness in France and in Belgium.

These are not the signs of weakness that the German Army gave in our occupied countries of the West. The weakness manifested itself in terror; it brought terror to reign throughout our countries, and that in order to permit the development of the policy of extermination of the vanquished nations which, in the minds of all Nazi leaders, remained the principal purpose, if not the sole purpose, of this war.

This terrorist policy, of which the Tribunal has just seen examples in connection with the repression of attacks by our French Forces of the Interior on the enemy, developed without any military necessity for it in all the countries of the West. The devastations committed by the enemy are extremely numerous. We shall limit our presentation to the destruction of Rotterdam at a time when the city had already capitulated and when only the question of the form of capitulation had to be settled; and secondly, to a description of the inundations which the German Army caused, without any military necessity of any sort, in 1945 on the eve of its destruction when that Army already knew that it had lost the game.

We have chosen the example of Rotterdam because it is the first act of terrorism of the German Army in the West. We have taken the inundations because, without her dykes, without fresh water, Holland ceases to exist. The day her dykes are destroyed, Holland disappears. One sees here the fulfillment of the enemy’s aim of destruction, formulated long ago by Germany as already shown by the citation from Hitler with which I opened my speech, an aim which was pursued to the very last minute of Germany’s existence as is proved by those unnecessary inundations.

We submit to the Tribunal Document F-719 as Exhibit Number RF-409, which comprises Dutch reports on the bombing of Rotterdam and the capitulation of the Dutch Army. On Pages 38 and 39 of the second document book are copies of the translations of documents exchanged between the commander of the German troops before Rotterdam and the colonel who was in command of the Dutch troops defending the city.

Captain Backer relates the incidents of that evening which ended with the burning of the city. At 1030 hours a German representative appeared with an ultimatum, unsigned and without any indication of the sender, demanding that the Dutch capitulate before 1230 hours. This document was returned by the Dutch colonel, who asked to be told the name and the military rank of the officer who had called upon him to surrender.

At 1215 hours Captain Backer appeared before the German lines and was received by a German officer. At 1235 hours he had an interview with German officers in a dairy shop. A German general wrote his terms for capitulation on the letter of reply, which the representative of the Dutch General Staff had just brought to him.

At 1320 hours Captain Backer left the place, this dairy shop where the negotiations had taken place, with the terms to which a reply had to be given. Two German officers escorted him. These escorting officers were protected by the flight of German aircraft, and red rockets were fired by them at 1322 and 1325 hours. At 1330 hours the first bomb fell upon Rotterdam, which was to be completely set on fire. The entry of the German troops was to take place at 1850 hours, but it was put forward at 1820 hours. Later the Germans said to Captain Backer that the purpose of the red rockets was to prevent the bombing. However, there had been excellent wireless communication from the ground to the aircraft. Captain Backer expressed his surprise that this should have been done by means of rockets.

The work on the inundation of the “Wieringermeer” polder began on 9 and 10 April 1945. I quote a Dutch document. That day German soldiers appeared on the polder, gave orders, and placed a guard for the dyke.

“On 17 April 1945 at 1215 hours the dyke was dynamited so that two parts of it were destroyed up to a height somewhat lower than the surface of the water of the Ijesselmeer . . . .

“As for the population, they were warned during the night of 16 to 17 April”—that is, at the time when the water was about to flood the polder—“In Wieringerwerf the news received by the mayor was passed from house to house that at noon the dyke would be destroyed. Altogether for this great polder, with an area of 20,000 hectares, not more than 8½ to 9 hours were granted for evacuation . . . . Telephone communications had been completely interrupted; and it was impossible to use automobiles, which meant that some individuals did not receive any warning until 8 o’clock in the morning . . . .

“The time given to the population was, therefore, too short for the evacuation . . . .

“The looting in the flooded polder has already been mentioned. During the morning of 17 April, on the day of the disaster, groups of German soldiers begin to loot . . . These soldiers came from Wieringen . . . Moreover, they broke everything that they did not want to take . . .”

This polder by itself covers half of all the flooded lands in Northern Holland. The polder was flooded on 17 April, when defeat was already a fact as far as the German Army was concerned. The Dutch people are seeking to recover the land which they have lost. Their courage, industry and energy arouse our admiration, but it is an immense loss which the German Army inflicted upon those people on 17 April.

Terrorism and extermination are intimately interwoven in all countries in the West.

Document C-45, which we submit as Exhibit Number RF-410 and which is the first in the document book, is an order of 10 February 1944 showing that repression, in the minds of the leaders of the German Army, was to be carried out without consideration of any kind:

“Fire must be immediately returned. If, as a result, innocent people are struck, it is to be regretted but it is entirely the fault of the terrorists.”

These lines were written over the signature of an officer of the general staff of the German Military Command in Belgium and Northern France. This officer was never denounced by his superiors as can be seen by the document.

Document F-665, submitted as Exhibit Number RF-411, Page 2 of your document book:

“The search of suspected villages requires experience. SD or GFP (Secret Field Police) personnel should be called upon. The real accomplices of the guerillas must be disclosed, and apprehended with all severity. Collective measures against the inhabitants of entire villages (this includes the burning of villages) are to be taken only in exceptional cases and may be ordered only by divisional commands or by chiefs of the SS and Police.”

This document is dated 6 May 1944. It comes from the High Command of the Wehrmacht; and it, or at least the covering letter, is signed by Jodl.

This document involves not only the Army General Staff, but the Labor Service—that is to say, Sauckel—and the Todt Organization—that is to say, Speer. Indeed, in the next to the last paragraph we may read:

“The directive . . . is applicable to all branches of the Wehrmacht and to all organizations which exercise their activities in occupied territories (the Reich Labor Service, the Todt Organization, et cetera).”

These orders, aimed at the extermination of innocent civilian populations, were to be carried out vigorously but at the price of a constant collusion of the German Army, the SS, the SD, and the Sipo, which the people of all countries of the West place together in the same horror and in the same reprobation.

In the war diary of General Von Brodowski submitted this morning under Exhibit Number RF-405, an excerpt of which is to be found on Pages 3, 4, and 5 of the document book, it is stated that repressive operations were carried out:

“An action against terrorists was undertaken in the southwestern area of the Department of Dordogne near Lalinde, in which a company of Georgians of Field Police, and members of the SD took part . . .”

Dated 14 June 1944 is a statement on the destruction of Oradour-sur-Glane. I shall come back to the destruction of this village. “600 persons are said to have been killed,” writes General Von Brodowski. It is underscored in the text.

“The whole male population of Oradour has been shot. Women and children took refuge in the church. The church caught fire. Explosives had been stored in the church. Even women and children perished.”

We shall let you know the results of the French inquiry. The Tribunal will see to what degree General Von Brodowski lied when he described the annihilation of Oradour in these terms.

Concerning Tulle:

“On 8 July 1944 in the evening the barracks occupied by the 13th Company of the 95th Security Regiment were attacked by terrorists. The struggle was terminated by the arrival of the Panzer division, ‘Das Reich.’ 120 male inhabitants of Tulle were hanged, and 1,000 sent to the SD at Limoges for investigation.”

THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, could we see the original of this document?

M. DUBOST: I showed it to you this morning, Mr. President, when I submitted it. It is rather a large document, if you will remember, Sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. We would like to see it.

DR. ROBERT SERVATIUS (Counsel for Defendant Sauckel): I should like briefly to rectify an error now, before it is carried any further.

The French Prosecutor mentioned that certain people were put at the disposal of the Arbeitsdienst. I should like to point out that Arbeitsdienst is not to be confused with the Arbeitseinsatz. The Arbeitseinsatz was ultimately directed by Sauckel, whereas the Arbeitsdienst had nothing whatsoever to do with Sauckel. I should like to ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of that distinction.

THE PRESIDENT: On account of a technical incident, the Tribunal will adjourn.

[A recess was taken.]

THE PRESIDENT: The attorney for Sauckel, I think, was addressing the Tribunal.

DR. SERVATIUS: I had pointed out the difference between the Arbeitsdienst and the Arbeitseinsatz. The French prosecuting attorney apparently confused the Arbeitsdienst with the Arbeitseinsatz, for he said that the Arbeitsdienst was connected with Sauckel. That is not so. The Arbeitsdienst was an organization for premilitary training which existed before the war and in which young people had to render labor service. These young people were to some extent used for military purposes. The Arbeitseinsatz was concerned solely with the recruiting of labor to be used in factories or other places of work. It follows, therefore, that Sauckel cannot be associated with the accusations that were made in this connection. That is what I wanted to say.

M. DUBOST: The two German words were translated in an identical manner in French. A verification having been made, the remarks of the defense are correct and Sauckel is not involved, but only the Army.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

M. DUBOST: Here are a few examples of terrorist extermination in Holland, in Belgium, and in other occupied countries of the West.

In Holland, as one example out of a thousand, there were the massacres of Putten of 30 September 1944. They are included in Document Number F-224, which we submit as Exhibit Number RF-324 and which is to be found on Page 46 of the document book. On 30 September 1944 an attack was made at Putten by members of the Dutch resistance against a German automobile. The Germans concluded that the village was a refuge for partisans. They searched the houses and assembled the population in the church.

A wounded German officer had been taken prisoner by the Dutch resistance. The Germans declared that if this officer was released within 24 hours no reprisals would be made. The officer was released, after having received medical care from the soldiers of the Dutch resistance who had captured him. However, in spite of the pledge given, reprisals were made upon the village of Putten, whose inhabitants were all innocent.

I now cite Paragraph 2 of the Dutch report:

“The population gathered in the church was informed that the men would be deported and the women had to leave the village because it would be destroyed.

“150 houses were burned down (the total amount of houses in the built-up area being about 2,000).

“Eight people, amongst whom a woman who tried to escape, were shot.

“The men were taken to the concentration camp at Amersfoort. Amongst them were many accidental passers-by who had been admitted into the closed village but who had been prevented from leaving the place.

“At Amersfoort about 50 people were selected; and during the transport, 12 jumped out of the train. 622 men were eventually deported to Auschwitz. The majority of those died after two months.

“From the 622 deported men, only 32 inhabitants of the village of Putten and 10 outsiders returned after the liberation.”

In Belgium, we will cite only a few facts which are related in Document Number F-685, already submitted under Exhibit Number RF-394. This document is to be found on Page 48 in your document book. It describes the murder of a young man who had sought refuge in a dug-out. He was killed by the Germans who were looking for soldiers of the Belgian secret army.

At Hervé the Germans fired on a lorry filled with young men and killed two of them. The same day some civilians were killed by a tank.

On Page 49, the summary executions of members of the secret army are described. I quote:

“At Anhée, shots having been fired upon them, the Germans crossed the river Meuse. They set fire to 58 houses and killed 13 men. At Annevoie, on the 4th, the Germans came across the river and burned 58 houses.”

Then follows a report on destruction, useless from the military point of view:

“. . . At Arendonck, on the 3rd, 80 men were killed, five houses were burned. At St. Hubert, on the 6th, three men killed and four houses burned. At Hody, on the 6th, systematic destruction of the village, 40 houses destroyed, 16 people killed. At Marcourt, 10 people were shot, 35 houses were burned. At Neroeteren, on the 9th, 9 people were killed. At Oost-Ham, on the 10th, 5 persons were killed. At Balen-Neet, on the 11th, 10 persons were shot.”

Page 50 contains the description of German extortions at the time of the temporary stabilization of the front.

“At Hechtel, the Germans having withdrawn before the British vanguard, the inhabitants hung out flags. But fresh German troops came to drive out the British vanguard and reprisals were taken; 31 people were shot; 80 houses were burned, and general looting took place. At Helchteren 34 houses were set on fire and 10 people were killed under similar circumstances. The same thing took place at Herenthout . . . .

“The circumstances in which these men were executed are always identical. The Germans search the cellars, bring the men out, line them along the highway, and shoot them, after having given them the order to run. In the meantime, grenades are thrown into the cellars, wounding women and children.”

Another example:

“At Lommel, the unexpected return of the German soldiers found the village with flags out. Seventeen persons who had sought refuge in a shelter were noticed by a German. He motioned to a tank which ran against the shelter crushing it and killing 12 people.”

In the case of Norway we shall take an example from a document already submitted under Exhibit Number RF-323, Pages 51 and 52 of your book:

“. . . on 13 April 1940, two women 30 years of age were shot at Ringerike. On 15 April, four civilians, of whom two were boys of 15 and 16 years of age, were shot in Aadal. One of those murdered was shot through the head, and had also been bayonetted in the stomach. On 19 April four civilians, of whom two were women and one a little boy 3 years of age, were shot at Ringsaker.

“To avenge the death of the two German policemen, who were shot on the 26th of April 1942 at Televaag, the entire place was laid waste. More than 90 properties with 334 buildings were totally destroyed, causing damage to buildings and chattels (furniture and fishing outfits) amounting to a total of 4,200,000 Kroner.”

In this document the Tribunal will find the continuation of the descriptions of German atrocities committed in Norway, without any necessity of a military character, simply to maintain the reign of terror.

In France massacres and destructions without military purpose were extremely numerous, and all of them were closely associated. We submit Document F-243 as Exhibit Number RF-412. The Tribunal will find this document on Pages 178 to 193 of the document book. It is a long list, drawn up by the French Office for Inquiry into War Crimes, of the towns that were destroyed and looted without any military necessity. The Tribunal will undoubtedly be enlightened by the reading of this document. We shall give but a few examples. In submitting this Document F-909 as Exhibit Number RF-413, we intend to relate the conditions under which a whole section of Marseilles was destroyed—Pages 56, 57, and 58, of your document book.

It is estimated that about 20,000 people were evacuated. This evacuation was ordered on 23 January. It was carried out without warning during the night of the 23rd to the 24th. I quote:

“It is estimated that 20,000 persons were evacuated. From Fréjus some of them were shipped by the Germans to the concentration camp of Compiègne. . . .

“The demolition operations began on 1 February at about 9 o’clock in the morning. They were carried out by troops of the German engineer corps. . . .

“The area destroyed is equivalent to 14 hectares: that is approximately 1,200 buildings.”

Inquiry was made to find those who were responsible for this destruction. After the liberation of Marseilles the German consul in Marseilles, Von Spiegel, was interrogated. His testimony is in Document F-908, which we submit as Exhibit Number RF-414, Page 53 of your document book. Spiegel stated:

“I know that a very short time after the evacuation of the old port the rumor spread that this measure had been brought about by financial interests, but I can assure you that in my opinion such a hypothesis is erroneous. The order came from the higher authorities of the Reich Government and had only two motives—the security of troops and the danger of epidemics.”

We do not intend to give you a complete description of the attacks committed by the Germans but merely a few examples. We submit Document F-600 as Exhibit Number RF-415, Page 59:

“At Ohis (Aisne) a civilian wanted to give an American soldier some cider to drink. The Germans returned. The American soldier was taken prisoner, and M. Hennebert was also taken away by the Germans to a spot known as the ‘Black Mountain’ in the village of Origny en Thiérache where his body was later discovered partly hidden under a stack of wood. The body bore the trace of two bayonet wounds in the back.”

I submit Document F-604 as Exhibit Number RF-416, Page 61 of the document book. A civilian was killed in his vineyard. Young men and girls walking along the road were killed. The motive was given as “presence of Maquis in the region.” All these victims were completely innocent.

Document F-904, which I submit as Exhibit Number RF-417, Page 62 of your document book. At Culoz “. . . young boys were arrested because they had run away at the sight of the Germans. . . .” They were reported. “. . . not one of them belonged to the resistance.”

At St. Jean-de-Maurienne—Document F-906, submitted as Exhibit Number RF-418, Page 63 of your document book:

“On 23 August the gendarmes, Chavanne and Empereur, dressed in civilian clothes, and M. Albert Taravel were arrested by German soldiers without legitimate reason. The lieutenant who was in charge of the Kommandantur promised the officer of the gendarmes to release these three men. This German later surreptitiously ordered his men to shoot these prisoners.

“Mademoiselle Lucie Perraud, 21 years of age, who was a maid at the Café Dentroux, was raped by a German soldier of Russian origin, under threat of a pistol.”

I will not mention any more of the atrocities described in this document.

I now come to the Vercors. This region was undeniably an important assembly center for French Forces of the Interior. Document F-611, which we submit as Exhibit Number RF-419, describes the atrocities committed against the innocent population of this region in reprisal for the presence of men of the Maquis. This document appears in your book on Page 69 and following. In Paragraph 3 is an enumeration of police operations in the Vercors area.

On 15 June, in the region of St. Donat: rape and looting. Execution at Portes-les-Valence on 8 July 1944 of 30 hostages taken from among the political prisoners interned at Fort Montluc at Lyons. Police raids carried out against the Maquis of the Vercors region from 21 July to 5 August 1944. Rape and looting in the region of Crest, Saillans, and Die. Bombing by aircraft of numerous villages in the Vercors area and in particular at La Chapelle and Vassieux-en-Vercors; summary execution of inhabitants of these places; looting. Execution, after summary judgment, of about a hundred young men at St. Nazaire-en-Royans; deportation to Germany of 300 others from this region. Murder of 50 gravely wounded persons in the Grotto of La Luire. On 15 June 1944, attack by German troops at St. Donat. I quote, “The Maquis had evacuated the town several days earlier . . . 54 women or young girls from 13 to 50 years of age were raped by the maddened soldiers.”

The Tribunal will forgive me if I avoid citing the atrocious details which follow. Bombing of the villages of Combovin, La Baume-Cornillanne, Ourches, et cetera:

“The losses caused by these bombings among the civilian population are rather high, for in most cases the inhabitants, caught by surprise, had no time to seek shelter . . . 2 women were raped at Crest . . . 3 women were raped at Saillans . . . .

“A young girl of twelve, who was wounded and pinned down between beams, awaited death for 6 long days unable either to sit down or sleep, and without receiving any food, and that under the eyes of the Germans who were occupying the village.”—A medical certificate from Doctor Nicolaides, who examined the women who were raped in this region.

I will pass on.

I submit Document F-612 under Exhibit Number RF-420. To terrorize the inhabitants at Trebeurden in Brittany they hanged innocent people, and slashed the corpses to make the blood flow.

I proceed. Document F-912 is submitted as Exhibit Number RF-421, Page 82 of your book. It is the report of the massacre of 35 Jews at St. Amand-Montrond. These men were arrested and killed with pistol shots in the back by members of the Gestapo and of the German Army. They were innocent of any crime.

I submit Document F-913 as Exhibit Number RF-422—Page 96, I am quoting:

“On 8 April 1944 German soldiers of the Gestapo arrested young André Bézillon, 18 years of age, dwelling at Oyonnax (Ain), whose brother was in the Maquis. The body of this young man was discovered on 11 April 1944 at Siège (Jura) frightfully mutilated. His nose and tongue had been cut off. There were traces of blows over his whole body and of slashes on his legs. Four other young men were also found at Siège at the same time as Bézillon. All of them had been mutilated in such a manner that they could not be identified. They bore no trace of bullets, which clearly indicates that they died from the consequences of ill-treatment.”

I submit Document F-614 as Exhibit Number RF-423, at Page 98 of your document book. It describes the destruction of the village of Cerizay, (Deux-Sèvres). I quote:

“The fire did not cause any accident to persons, but the bodies of two persons killed by German convoys and those of two victims of the bombardment were burned.”

This village was destroyed by artillery fire; 172 buildings were destroyed and 559 were damaged. We now submit another document, Document F-919 as Exhibit Number RF-424, Page 103. It concerns the murder of a young man of Tourc’h in Finistère. The murderers compelled the mother to prepare a meal for them. Having been fed, they had the victim disinterred. They searched and found that the body bore a card of identity bearing the same name and address as his mother, brothers, and sisters, who were present and in tears. One of the soldiers, finding no excuse to explain this crime, said dryly before going away: “He was not a terrorist! What a pity!” and the body was buried again. Document F-616 submitted as Exhibit Number RF-425, Page 104, concerns the report of the operations of the German Army in the region of Nice, about 20 July 1944. I quote:

“. . . having been attacked at Presles by several groups of Maquis in the region, by way of reprisal, this Mongolian detachment, as usual commanded by the SS, went to a farm where two French members of the resistance had been hidden. Being unable to take them prisoners, these soldiers then arrested the proprietors of that farm (the husband and wife), and after subjecting them to numerous atrocities, rape, et cetera, they shot them with submachine guns. Then they took the son of these victims, who was only 3 years of age; and, after having tortured him frightfully, they crucified him on the gate of the farmhouse.”

We submit Document F-914 as Exhibit Number RF-426, Page 107 of your document book. This is a long recital of murders committed without any cause whatever by the German Army in Rue Tronchet at Lyons. I now read:

“Without preliminary warning, without any effort having been made to verify the exact character of the situation and, if necessary, to seize those responsible for the act, the soldiers opened fire. A certain number of civilians, men, women, and children fell. Others who were untouched or only slightly wounded fled in haste.”

The Tribunal will find the official report that was drawn up on the occasion of these murders.

We submit without quoting, asking the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it only, the report relating to the crimes of the German Army committed in the region of Loches (Indre-et-Loire), Document F-617, submitted as Exhibit Number RF-427, Page 115 of your document book.

Document F-607, submitted as Exhibit Number RF-428, which is on Page 119 of your document book, describes the looting, rape, and burnings at Saillans during the months of July and of August 1944. I quote, “During their sojourn in the region”—referring to German soldiers—“rapes were committed against three women in that area.” I pass on. Document F-608, Page 120 of your document book, submitted as Exhibit Number RF-429: A person was burned alive at Puisots by a punitive expedition. This person was innocent.

I submit Document F-610 as Exhibit Number RF-430, Page 122 of your document book. The whole region of Vassieux in the Vercors was devastated. This document, Number F-610, is a report by the Red Cross prepared prior to the liberation. I am quoting:

“We found on a farm a wounded man, who had been hit by 8 bullets in the following circumstances. The Germans forced him to set fire to his own house, and tried to prevent him from escaping the flames by shooting at him with their pistols. In spite of his wounds, he was able miraculously to escape.”

We submit Document F-618 as Exhibit Number RF-431, Page 124 of the document book. I quote, concerning people who were executed:

“Before being shot these people were tortured. One of them, M. Francis Duperrier, had a broken arm and his face was completely mutilated. Another, M. Feroud-Plattet, had been completely disembowelled with a piece of sharp wood. His jaw bone was also crushed.”

We submit Document 605 as Exhibit Number RF-432, Page 126. This document describes the burning of the hamlet of des Plaines near Moutiers, in Savoy: “Two women, Madame Romanet, a widow, 72 years old, and her daughter, age 41, were burned to death in a small room of their dwelling, where they had sought refuge. In the same place a man, M. Charvaz, who had had his thigh shattered by a bullet, was also found burned.”

We now submit as Exhibit Number RF-433 the French Document F-298, Page 127 and following in your document book, which describes the destruction of Maillé in the department of Indre-et-Loire. That area was entirely destroyed on 25 August 1944, and a large number of its inhabitants were killed or seriously wounded. This destruction and these crimes had no terrorist action, no action by the French Forces of the Interior as a motive.

Document F-907 submitted as Exhibit Number RF-434—Page 132 and following in your document book—relates the incidents leading to German crimes at Montpezat-de-Quercy. This is a letter written to the French Delegation by the Bishop of Montauban, Monseigneur Théas, on 11 December 1945. This document really explains Document F-673, already submitted as Exhibit Number RF-392, from which I will read. The first part consists of a letter by the French Armistice Commission, and has been taken from the archives of the Armistice Commission in Wiesbaden:

“On the night of 6 to 7 June last, in the course of an operation in the region of Montpezat-de-Quercy, German troops set fire to four farmhouses which formed the hamlet called ‘Perches.’ Three men, two women, and two children, 14 and 4 years old, were burned alive. Two women and a child of ten who disappeared probably suffered the same fate.

“On Saturday, 10 June, having been fired at by two recalcitrants at the village of Marsoulas, German troops killed these two men. Moreover, they massacred without any explanation all the other inhabitants of the village that they could lay their hands on.

“Thus 7 men, 6 women, and 14 children were killed, most of them still in their beds at the early hour when this happened.

“On 10 June, at about 1900 hours, five Luftwaffe aircraft attacked the town of Tarbes for half an hour with bombs and machine guns. Several buildings were destroyed, among them the Hôtel des Ponts et Chaussées, and the Academic Inspectorate. There were 7 dead and about 10 wounded who were hit by chance among the population of the town. On this occasion the general in command of the VS-659 at Tarbes immediately informed the Prefect of the Department of Basses-Pyrénées that the operation had been neither caused nor ordered by him.

“Following each of these events the Regional Prefect of Toulouse addressed to the general commanding the HVS-564 letters in which in dignified and measured terms he protested against the acts in question, through which innocent women and children were deliberately killed. He asserted very rightly that under no circumstances could children in the cradle be considered as accomplices of the terrorists. He requested finally that instructions be given to avoid the recurrence of such painful events.

“Replying on 19 June to the three letters of the Regional Prefect of Toulouse, the chief of staff of the general commanding the head liaison staff 564 announced the principles which determined the position taken by his chief, which justified the acts of reprisal quoted on the following grounds:

“The duty of the French population is not only to flee from terrorists but also to render their operations impossible, which will avoid any reprisals being taken against innocent people. In the struggle against terrorism the German Army must and will employ all means at its disposal, even methods of combat new to Western Europe.

“The terror raids of the Anglo-Americans also massacre thousands and thousands of German children. There, too, innocent blood is being shed through the action of the enemy, whose support of terrorism is forcing the German soldier to use his arms in the South of France.

“I beg to ask you”—concluded General Bridoux, writing to the German Commission—“whether the French Government is to consider the arguments cited above as reflecting accurately the position taken by the German High Command, in view of the facts disclosed in the first part of the present letter.”

We now submit Document E-190 as Exhibit Number RF-435, Page 141 of the document book, which describes the crimes committed at Ascq by a German unit which, in reprisal for the destruction of the railway, massacred 77 men of all categories and all ages, among whom were 22 employees of the French State railway, some industrialists, business men, and workmen. I quote:

“The oldest of these victims, M. Briet, retired, was 74 years old; he was born on 3 October 1869 at Ascq. The youngest, Jean Roques, student and son of the postmaster, was 15 years old, born on 4 January 1929 at Saint Quentin. Father Gilleron, a priest at Ascq, and his two protegées, M. Averlon and his son, who had fled from the coast, were also shot.”

This massacre was the cause of a protest made by the French Government at that time, to which Commander-in-Chief Von Rundstedt replied on 3 May 1944 (Document F-673, already submitted as Exhibit Number RF-392, Page 154):

“The population of Ascq bears the responsibility for the consequences of its treacherous conduct, which I can only severely condemn.”

General Bérard, president of the French delegation attached to the German Armistice Commission, was not satisfied with the reply given by Rundstedt; and on 21 June 1944 he reiterated the French protest, addressing it this time to General Vogl, president of the German Armistice Commission. This is still Document F-673, Exhibit Number RF-392. I quote:

“In all, from 10 October 1943 to 1st May 1944, more than 1,200 persons were made the victims of these measures of repression. . . .

“These measures of repression strike the innocent and cause terror to reign among the French population . . . .

“A great number of the acts that have been mentioned took place in the course of repressive operations directed against population accused of having relations with the Maquis. In these operations there was never any care taken to discover whether the people suspected of having served the Maquis were really guilty; and still less in this case, to ascertain whether these people had acted voluntarily or under duress. The number of innocent people executed is therefore considerable. . . .

“The repressive operation in Dordogne, from 26 March to 3 April 1944, and particularly the tragic affair of Ascq, which have already brought about the intervention of the head of the French Government, are grievous examples. At Ascq, especially, 86 innocent people paid with their lives for an attempted attack which, according to my information, did not cause the death of a single German soldier. . . .

“Such acts can only stimulate the spirit of revolt in the adversaries of Germany, who finally are the only ones to benefit.”

The reply of the Armistice Commission, Document F-707, submitted as Exhibit Number RF-436, is the rejection of General Bérard’s request. The document is before you. I do not think it is necessary for me to read it.

The general, on 3 August 1944, reiterated his protest. This is Document F-673, Exhibit Number RF-392, already submitted. At the end of his protest he writes:

“An enemy who surrenders must not be killed even though he is a franc-tireur or a spy. The latter will receive just punishment through the courts.”

But this is only the text of stipulations to be applied within Germany.

We submit Document F-706, Exhibit Number RF-437, which is a note from the French Secretary of State for Defense to the German general protesting against the measures of destruction taken by the German troops in Chaudebonne and Chaveroche. We shall not read this document. The Tribunal may take judicial notice of it, if it deems it necessary.

We now come to the statement of the events of Tulle, in which 120 Frenchmen were hanged, Page 169 (Document F-673, Exhibit RF-392). I am quoting:

“On 7 June a large group of francs-tireurs attacked the French forces employed in the maintenance of order and succeeded in seizing the greater part of the town of Tulle after a struggle which lasted until dawn. . . .

“The same day, at about 2000 hours, important German armored forces came to the assistance of the garrison and penetrated into the city from which the terrorists withdrew in haste. . . .”

These troops, which re-took Tulle, decided to carry out reprisals. The French Forces of the Interior that had taken the town had withdrawn. The Germans had taken no prisoners. The reprisals were carried out upon civilians. Without discrimination they were arrested.

“The victims were selected without any inquiry, without even any questioning, haphazardly; workmen, students, professors, industrialists. There were even among them some militia sympathizers and candidates for the Waffen SS. The 120 corpses which were hanged from the balconies and lamp-posts of the Avenue de la Gare, along a distance of 500 meters, were a horrible spectacle that will remain in the memory of the unfortunate population of Tulle for a long time.”

We now come to the crowning event in these German atrocities: the destruction of Oradour-sur-Glane, in the month of June 1944. The Tribunal will accept, we hope, the presentation of Document F-236, which now becomes Exhibit Number RF-438. This is an official book, published by the French Government, which gives a full description of the events. I will give you a brief analysis of the report which the de facto government of the time sent to the German general who was Commander-in-Chief for the regions of the West:

“On Saturday, 10 June, a detachment of SS belonging very likely to the ‘Das Reich’ division which was present in the area, burst into the village, after having surrounded it entirely, and ordered the population to gather in the central square. It was then announced that it had been reported that explosives had been hidden in the village and that a search and the checking of identity were about to take place. The men were asked to make four or five groups, each of which was locked into a barn. The women and children were taken to the church and locked in. It was about 1400 hours. A little later machine-gunning began and the whole village was set on fire, as well as the surrounding farms. The houses were set on fire one by one. The operation lasted undoubtedly several hours, in view of the extent of the locality.

“In the meantime the women and the children were in anguish as they heard the sound of the fires and of the shootings. At 1700 hours, German soldiers entered the church and placed upon the communion table an asphyxiating apparatus which comprised a sort of box from which lighted fuses emerged. Shortly after the atmosphere became unbreathable. However someone was able to break open the vestry door which enabled the women and children to regain consciousness. The German soldiers then started to shoot through the windows of the church, and they came inside to finish off the last survivors with machine guns. Then they spread upon the soil some inflammable material. One woman alone was able to escape, having climbed on the window to run away. The cries of a mother who tried to give her child to her, drew the attention of one of the guards who fired on the would-be fugitive and wounded her seriously. She saved her life by simulating death and she was later cared for in a hospital at Limoges.

“At about 1800 hours the German soldiers stopped the local train which was passing in the vicinity. They told passengers going to Oradour to get off, and, having machine-gunned them, threw their bodies into the flames. At the end of the evening, as well as the following day, a Sunday morning, the inhabitants of the surrounding hamlets, alarmed by the fire or made anxious because of the absence of their children who had been going to school at Oradour, attempted to approach, but they were either machine-gunned or driven away by force by German sentinels who were guarding the exits of the village. However, on the afternoon of Sunday some were able to get into the ruins, and they stated that the church was filled with the corpses of women and children, all shrivelled up and calcinated.

“An absolutely reliable witness was able to see the body of a mother holding her child in her arms at the entrance of the church, and in front of the altar the body of a little child kneeling, and near the confessional the bodies of two children in each other’s arms.

“During the night from Sunday to Monday the German troops returned and attempted to remove traces by proceeding with the summary burial of the women and children outside the church.

“The news of this drama began to spread through Limoges on the 11th of June.

“In the evening, the general commanding the Verbindungsstab refused to grant the pass, which was personally requested by the Regional Prefect, for him and the Deputy Prefect to move about in the area. Only the Subprefect of Rochechouart was able to go to Oradour and report to his chief on the following day that the village, which comprised 85 houses, was only a mass of ruins and that the greater part of the population, women and children included, had perished.

“On Tuesday, 13 June, the Regional Prefect finally obtained authorization to go there and was able to proceed to the town, accompanied by the Deputy Prefect and the Bishop of Limoges. In the church, which was partly in ruins, there were still the calcinated remains of children. Bones were mixed with the ashes of the woodwork. The ground was strewn with shells with ‘STKAM’ marked upon them, and on the walls there were numerous traces of bullets at a man’s height.

“Outside the church the soil was freshly dug; children’s garments were piled up, half burned. Where the barns had stood, completely calcinated human skeletons, heaped one on the other, partially covered with various material made a horrible charnel-house.

“. . . although it is impossible to give the exact number of these victims, it can be estimated that there were 800 to 1,000 dead, among them many children who had been evacuated from regions threatened by bombardment. There do not seem to have been more than ten survivors among the persons who were present in the village of Oradour at the beginning of the afternoon of 10 June.”

Such are the facts.

“I have the honor, General, to ask you”—concluded General Bridoux addressing his enemy—“to be good enough to communicate these facts to the German High Command in France. I greatly hope that they will be brought to the knowledge of the Government of the Reich, because of the political importance which they will assume from their repercussion on the mind of the French population.”

An inquiry has been conducted since; it is summed up in the book which has just been placed before you. This inquiry has shown that no member of the French Forces of the Interior was in the village, that there was none within several kilometers. It seems even proved that the causes of the massacre of Oradour-sur-Glane are remote. The unit which perpetrated this crime apparently did so as an act of vengeance, because of an attempt against it about 50 kilometers further away.

The German Army ordered a judicial inquiry. Document F-673, already submitted as RF-392, so indicates; Pages 175 and 176. This document is dated 4 January 1945. There were no Germans in France at that time, at least not in Oradour-sur-Glane. The version given by the German authority is that the reprisals appear to be absolutely justified for military reasons. The German military commander who was responsible for it fell in combat in Normandy.

We shall remember the phrase “The reprisals appear to be absolutely justified, for military reasons.” Therefore, in the eyes of the German Army, the crime of Oradour-sur-Glane which I have described to you plainly, is a crime which is fully justified.

The guilt of Keitel in all these matters is certain.

In Document F-673, Exhibit Number RF-392—and this will be the end of my statement—there is a strange document which is signed by him. It was drawn up on 5 March 1945. It concerns alleged executions, without trial, of French citizens. You will find it on Page 177. It will show the Tribunal the manner in which these criminal inquiries were conducted, on orders, by the German Army, following incidents as grave as that of Oradour-sur-Glane, which had to be justified at any price. In this document, which should be cited in its entirety, I wish only to look at the next to the last paragraph. It was in the German interest to answer these reproaches as promptly as possible.

THE PRESIDENT: This is not a document of which we can take judicial notice and therefore if you want to put the whole document in you must put it in.

M. DUBOST: I am surprised, Your Honor; you have already accepted it. This is Document F-673. It was submitted as Exhibit Number RF-392 and is the whole bundle of documents of the Wiesbaden German Armistice Commission.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but is it a public document? It is not a public document, is it?

M. DUBOST: Am I to understand that the Tribunal wants me to read it in its entirety?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, F-673 seems to be a very large bundle of documents. This particular part of it, this document signed by Keitel, is a private document.

M. DUBOST: It is a document which comes from the German Armistice Commission in Wiesbaden, which was presented several hours ago under Exhibit Number RF-392, and you accepted it.

THE PRESIDENT: I know we accepted its being deposited, but that does not mean that the whole of the document is in evidence. I mean, we have ruled over and over again that documents of which we do not take judicial notice must be read so that they will go through the interpreting system and will be interpreted into German to the German counsel.

M. DUBOST: I am therefore going to give you the reading of the whole document.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

M. DUBOST: “The High Command of the Wehrmacht, Headquarters of the Führer, 5 March 1945. WFST Qu 2 (I) Number 01487/45-g; By Captain Cartellieri. Secret. Subject: Alleged executions of French citizens without trial.

“1. German Armistice Commission.

“2. High Command West.

“In August 1944, the French Commission attached to the German Armistice Commission addressed a note to the latter, giving an exact statement of incidents concerning alleged arbitrary executions of Frenchmen from 9 to 23 June 1944.

“The information given in the French note was for the most part so detailed that verification from the German side was undoubtedly possible.

“On 26 September 1944 the High Command of the Wehrmacht entrusted the German Armistice Commission with the study of this affair. The said commission later requested High Command West for an inquiry on the incidents and an opinion on the facts submitted in the French note.

“On 12 February 1945 the German Armistice Commission received from the Army Group B (from the President of the Military Tribunal of Army Group B) a note stating that the documents referring to this affair had been since November 1944 with the Army Judge of Pz. AOK 6, and that Pz. AOK 6 and the Second SS Panzer Division ‘Das Reich’ had in the meantime been detached from Army Group B.

“The manner in which this affair was inquired into causes the following remarks to be made:

“The French, that is, the Delegation of the Vichy Government have in this memorandum brought on the German Wehrmacht the grave charge of having carried out numerous executions of French subjects, executions which are unjustified by law and therefore murders. It was in the interest of Germany to reply as promptly as possible to such charges. In the long period which has elapsed since the receipt of the French note it should have been possible, in spite of the development of the military situation and the movement of troops resulting therefrom, to single out at least part of these charges and to refute them by examination of the facts. If merely one fraction of the charge had been refuted”—this sentence is important—“it would have been possible to show the French that all their claims were based upon doubtful data. By the fact that nothing at all was done in this matter by the Germans, the enemy must have the impression that we are not in a position to answer these charges.

“The study of this matter shows that there is often a considerable lack of understanding of the importance of counteracting all enemy propaganda and charges against the German Army by immediately refuting alleged German atrocities.

“The German Armistice Commission is hereby entrusted to continue the study of this matter with all energy. We ask that every assistance be given them for speeding up this work now, within their own field of duty. The fact that Pz. AOK 6 is no longer under High Command West is no reason for impeding the making of the necessary investigations for clearing up and refuting the French charges.”

THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, you stated, I think, that this document implicated Keitel.

M. DUBOST: It is signed by Keitel, Sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Signed by him, yes, but how does it implicate him in the affair of Oradour?

M. DUBOST: Mr. President, the French Commission, together with the de facto Vichy Government, frequently brought to the attention of the German authorities not only the atrocities of Oradbur-sur-Glane, but numerous other atrocities. Orders were given by Keitel that these facts, which constitute absolute reality not merely in the eyes of the French but in the eyes of all those who have objectively and impartially inquired into the matter, should be examined for the purpose of refuting part of these charges. This letter refers to the protest lodged earlier by the French, and we read part of it before you in the course of this examination of the question, particularly the facts noted in the letter of General Bridoux which mentions the murder of French people at Marsoulas in the department of Haute-Garonne, among them fourteen children.

THE PRESIDENT: I think you said that that was the last document you were going to refer to?

M. DUBOST: It is the last document.

THE PRESIDENT: Ten minutes past five. Shall we adjourn? M. Dubost, could you let us know what subject is to be gone into tomorrow?

M. DUBOST: Crimes against Humanity, by my colleague M. Faure. If you will allow me to present my conclusion this evening—it will not take long. Our work has been delayed somewhat this afternoon.

THE PRESIDENT: How long do you think you will take, M. Dubost, to make your concluding statement?

M. DUBOST: I think by five-thirty I shall be through.

THE PRESIDENT: I think perhaps, if it is as convenient to you, we had better hear you in the morning. Is it equally convenient to you?

M. DUBOST: I am at the orders of the Tribunal.

[The Tribunal adjourned until 1 February 1946 at 1000 hours.]

FORTY-EIGHTH DAY Friday, 1 February 1946

Morning Session

MARSHAL: May it please the Court, I desire to announce that Defendants Kaltenbrunner and Seyss-Inquart will be absent from this morning’s session on account of illness.

M. DUBOST: I have now completed my presentation of facts. This presentation has consisted of a dry enumeration of crimes, atrocities, extortions of all sorts, which I deliberately presented to you without any embellishments of oratory. The facts have a profound eloquence which suffices. These facts are, it seems to me, definitely established. I do not believe that the Defense, nor history—even German history—will be able to set aside their essential aspects. They will no doubt be exposed to criticism.

Our evidence was hastily collected in a ruined country whose every means of communication had been destroyed by an enemy in flight, in a country where each individual was more concerned with preparation for the future than with looking back upon the past, even to exact vengeance, for the future is the life of our children, and the past is but death and destruction.

For the whole of France, for each country in the West, the demands of daily life, the difficulty of preparing for a better future once again give full meaning to the words of the Scriptures, Sinite mortuos sepelire mortuos (Let the dead bury their dead.); and that is why in spite of all our efforts, all our endeavors, to prepare the work of justice which France and universal conscience demand, we were not able to be more thorough. That is why errors of detail may have slipped into our work, but the rectifications which time and the Defense will effect can be only accessory. They will not eliminate the fact that millions of men have been deported, starved, exhausted through labor and privation before being put to death, like cattle without value; that innumerable innocent persons have been tortured before being turned over to the executioner. Rectifications may affect circumstances of time, sometimes of place; they will not change the essential facts even if a few details are modified.

But these facts, having been established in their general aspect, it remains for us to complete our task by giving them juridical significance, by analyzing them with reference to the law of which they constitute a violation, and by making clear the inculpations, in other words, by fixing the responsibilities, of each defendant in respect to a law.

What law shall we apply? Taken one by one and separated from the systematic policy which conceived, willed, and ordered them as a means of achieving domination through terror and beyond that as a means of extermination pure and simple; these facts constitute crimes against common law as much as violations of the laws and usages of war and of international law. All of them could therefore be defined separately as a violation of an international convention and of a penal provision of one or another of our established domestic laws. Or rather all could be qualified as a violation of a rule of common law which has emerged from each of our own domestic laws, as shown by M. De Menthon in his address; of that common law which, in the last analysis, was designated by him as being the foundation, as the root of international customs, which, beyond the Charter itself, is and remains the one and only guide of your decisions.

But it is right to know that this common law springs from our established laws and, like them, punishes in principle actual misdeeds. Now, all of our defendants remained physically divorced from each of the criminal facts which in the ubiquity of their power they multiplied throughout the world. It was their will which commanded; but, as Mr. Justice Jackson recalled, they never reddened their own hands with the blood of their victims. Therefore, if we refer exclusively to our established laws and especially to French domestic law, the defendants could not, in any case, be considered as principal authors but merely as accomplices “who have provoked the act through abuse of authority or of power.” All of that is indeed a contradiction to the conception which each person in our countries holds of the guilt of the major war criminals. To solve the problem thus would be to narrow singularly the field of responsibility of each of the defendants. This responsibility would appear merely accessory, where, in fact, it is the principal responsibility; it would appear fragmentary, whereas to be truly fixed it must be presented as one single time, in the whole of their thoughts, intentions, and acts as chiefs of the Nazi government who conceived, willed, ordered, or tolerated the development of that systematic policy of terror and extermination, of which each fact taken separately is but a particular aspect, merely a constituent element. Thus a simple reference to common law does not bring us close enough to reality. If it does not omit, as such, any of the facts to which guilt attaches, it does leave aside the psychological factor and does not give us a complete conception of the guilt of the accused in a single formula embracing all the reality. That is because common law expresses a certain status of common morality which is accepted by civilized nations as law for the mutual relations of citizens. Profoundly imbued with the concept of individualism, this common law is not adequate to meet the exigencies of collective life which international morality must govern. Furthermore, this common law which is the foundation of our tradition has become static in a Cartesian sense, whereas our custom remains enriched by all the dynamism of international penal law. The Charter has not fixed the manner in which we are to qualify in a juridical sense the facts which I have presented before you. In creating your Tribunal, the authors of the Charter limited themselves to establishing the limits of your jurisdiction: War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity, Crimes against Peace; and even then they did not give an exhaustive definition of each of these crimes. The Tribunal may refer on this point to Article 6, paragraphs b and c of the Charter of the Tribunal. This article gives only an indicative enumeration. That is because the authors of the Charter bore in mind that international penal law is only still in the first phase of the birth of a custom in which law is developed by reaction to the deed and where the judge intervenes only to save the criminals from individual vengeance or where law is applied by the judge alone and the penalty pronounced according to his sole judgment. Thus, the authors of the Charter abstained from giving us a fixed method of qualification by reference to common law or on the contrary, to custom. They did not say to you:

“You will take one by one the criminal facts submitted to you, and each fact taken separately shall be isolated from the others to be defined by reference to a stipulation of any one domestic law or to a synthesis of domestic laws, yielding thus a common law.”

Nor did they say to you:

“You will take these scattered criminal facts, you will group them together to make of them one single crime of which the definition, respecting in a general sense the rules of common law, will be essentially determined by the sole intention or purpose sought, without attempting to seek by analogy any precedents in the different domestic laws which apply only, moreover, to an entirely different subject.”

The authors of the Charter have left you free, entirely free, within the limits of custom; and consequently we, ourselves, within the same limitations are free to propose to you such qualification which appears to us most practical, which appears to us to come closest to the changing reality of facts in their relation to the general principles of law and the broad rules of morality which may seem to us to be such as to meet best the demands of human conscience expressed by international public opinion duly enlightened on Hitlerian atrocities, which will, in fact, remain within the limits of international penal custom. This custom is indeed still in a formulative stage; but although this Trial is without precedent, the problems that are being examined in this Court have arisen before; and the jurists who preceded us have already given them solutions. These solutions constitute precedents; and, as such, they constitute the first elements of your custom. In their memorandum to the Commission to the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Sanctions at the Peace Conference of 1919-1920 the French jurists, M. Larnaude and M. De Lapradelle wrote:

“Criminal law could not foresee that through a singular defiance of the essential laws of humanity, of civilization, of honor, an army, by virtue of the instructions of its sovereign, could systematically lend itself to perform deeds through the perpetration of acts such as the enemy has not shrunk from performing in order to achieve success and victory. Therefore, domestic criminal law has never before been able to make provisions which would permit the repression of such acts. And still one must, in the interpretation of every law, cling to the intention of the law maker. . . . If, in certain cases considered particularly propitious, one might succeed in apprehending individuals bearing responsibility of whom the Emperor could be considered an accomplice one would only succeed, and not without difficulty, in narrowing the field of his responsibility by limiting it to a few precise cases. . . . It is a very restricted approach to the problem of William II to diminish it and reduce it to the proportions of a criminal or a court-martial case. . . . The high justice which an anxious world awaits would not be satisfied if the German Emperor were judged only as an accomplice or even as the co-author of a common-law crime. His actions as Chief of State must be considered in conformity with their true juridical character. . . .”

But except for minor details all of this is indeed implicitly contained in the last paragraph of Article 6 of the Charter of your Tribunal:

“Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes”—Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity—“are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.”

Fundamentally, all this is within strict conformity with the primordial German concept of Führertum, which places all responsibility on the leader and those who are with the leader from the very start. Thus we can, by as close as possible to reality, by applying the Charter of 8 August and Article 6 of the Charter of your Tribunal, by respecting the rules of common law defined by the chief of our delegation, M. De Menthon, and by following custom, which is sketched in the field of international penal law, require of your Tribunal to declare all the defendants guilty of having, in their role as the chief Hitlerian leaders of the German people, conceived, willed, ordained, or merely tolerated by their silence that assassinations or other inhuman acts be systematically committed, that violent treatment be systematically imposed on prisoners of war or civilians, that devastations without justification be systematically committed as a deliberate instrument for the accomplishment of their purpose of dominating Europe and the world through terrorism and the extermination of entire populations in order to enlarge the living space of the German people.

More specifically, we ask you to declare Göring, Keitel, and Jodl guilty of having taken part in the execution of this plan by ordering the seizure and the execution of hostages in violation of Article 50 of the Hague Convention which prohibits collective sanctions and reprisals.

We ask you to find Keitel, Jodl, Kaltenbrunner, Seyss-Inquart, Bormann, and Ribbentrop guilty of having taken part in the execution of this plan: 1. by ordering the terrorist murders of innocent civilians; 2. by ordering the execution without trial and torture to death of members of the resistance; 3. by ordering devastations without justification:

To declare Göring, Keitel, Jodl, Speer, and Sauckel guilty of having taken part in the execution of this plan by jeopardizing the health and the lives of prisoners of war, notably by submitting them to privations and hard treatments, by exposing them, or by attempting to expose them to bombings or other risks of war:

To declare Göring, Keitel, Jodl, Kaltenbrunner, and Bormann guilty of having taken part in the execution of this plan, by personally ordering or by provoking the formulation of orders leading to terrorist murder or to the lynching by the population of certain combatants, more specifically, of airmen and members of commando groups as well as the terrorist murder or slow extermination of certain categories of prisoners of war:

To declare Keitel guilty of having taken part in the execution of this plan by prescribing the deportation of innocent civilians and by applying to some of them the NN (Nacht und Nebel) regime which marked them for extermination:

To declare Jodl guilty of having taken part in the execution of this plan by ordering the arrest, with a view to deportation, of the Jews of Denmark:

To declare Frank, Rosenberg, Streicher, Von Schirach, Sauckel, Frick, and Hess guilty of having taken part in the execution of this plan, by justifying the extermination of Jews or by working out a statute with a view to their extermination:

To declare Göring guilty of having taken part in the execution of this plan: 1. by creating concentration camps and by placing them under the control of the State Police for the purpose of ridding National Socialism of any opposition; 2. by tolerating and then by approving fatal physiological experiments on the effect of cold, and of increasing or decreasing pressure, which experiments were carried out—with material provided by the Luftwaffe and controlled by Dr. Rascher, medical officer of the Luftwaffe detailed to the concentration camp of Dachau for that purpose—on healthy deportees who were involuntary subjects for the said experiments with which he (Göring), as chief, associated himself; 3. by utilizing in large numbers internees for exhausting labor under inhuman conditions in the armament factories of the Luftwaffe:

To find Speer guilty of having taken part in the execution of this plan by employing in large numbers the internees for exhausting labor under inhumane conditions in the armament factories (Document Number 1584-PS):

To find Bormann guilty of having taken part in the execution of this plan by participating in the extermination of internees in concentration camps (Document Number 654-PS).

With regard to Dönitz, Raeder, Von Papen, Von Neurath, Fritzsche, Funk, and Schacht, we associate ourselves with the conclusion of our British and American colleagues. And in connection with the acts above defined, we ask you further, in accordance with the stipulation of Article 9 of the Charter of your Tribunal, to find the OKW and the OKH guilty of the execution of this plan by having ordered and participated in the deportation of innocent civilians from the occupied countries in the West:

To find the OKW, the OKH, and the OKL guilty of the execution of this plan by participating in the setting-up of the doctrine of hostages as a means to terrorize and by prescribing the seizure and execution of hostages in the countries of the West, by reducing to a degrading level the material living conditions of prisoners of war, by depriving the latter of the guarantees granted them by international custom and by positive international law, by ordering or by tolerating the employment of prisoners of war in dangerous work or in labor directly connected with military operations, by ordering the execution of escaped prisoners or prisoners attempting to escape, and the execution of numerous groups of commandos, and by giving the SS and SD directives for the extermination of airmen:

To find the OKL guilty of having participated in the execution of this plan: 1. by employing in large numbers internees in concentration camps for exhaustive labor under inhuman conditions in the armament factories of the Luftwaffe; 2. by participating in fatal physiological experiments on the effect of cold and of increasing or decreasing pressure, which experiments were carried out for the benefit of the Luftwaffe and conducted by Dr. Rascher, medical officer of the Luftwaffe, attached to the concentration camp at Dachau (Documents 343-PS, 1610-PS, 669-PS, L-90, 668-PS, UK-56, 835-PS, 834-PS, F-278 (B)):

To find the SS and the SD guilty of the execution of this plan by having deported and participated in the deportation of innocent civilians from the occupied countries in the West and by having tortured them and exterminated them by every means in concentration camps:

To find the SS, the SD, and the Gestapo guilty of the execution of this plan by having given direct orders for the execution or the deportation, with a view to their slow extermination, of members of commando groups, airmen, escaped prisoners, those who refused to accept forced labor, or those who were rebellious to the Nazi order; by forbidding any repression of acts of lynching committed by the German population on airmen brought down:

To find the SS, the SD, and the Gestapo guilty of having tortured and of having executed without trial members of the resistance:

To find the same organizations and in addition, the OKW and the OKH in collusion with the SS, the SD, and the Gestapo guilty of having committed or ordered massacres and devastations without justification (Documents 1063-PS, F-285, R-91, R-129, 1553-PS, L-7, F-185(A)):

To find the Gestapo guilty of having participated in the execution of this plan by the deportation of innocent civilians from the occupied countries of the West by the tortures and assassinations which were inflicted on them:

To find the Government of the Reich (Reichsregierung) and the Leadership Corps of the National Socialist Party guilty of having, for the purpose of dominating Europe and the world, conceived and prepared the systematic extermination of innocent civilians from the occupied countries of the West through their deportation and their assassination in concentration camps:

To find the Leadership Corps of the National Socialist Party and the Government of the Reich guilty of having, for the purpose of dominating Europe and the world through terrorism, systematically conceived and provoked tortures, summary executions, massacres, and devastation without cause as described above:

To find the Government of the Reich and the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party guilty of having, for the purpose of dominating Europe and the world, conceived and prepared the extermination of combatants who had surrendered and the demoralization, extensive exploitation, and extermination of prisoners of war, and having participated in it.

Such are the juridical qualifications of the facts which I have the honor of submitting to you. But a few lessons emerge from these facts. May the Tribunal permit me to state them in conclusion.

For hundreds of years humanity has renounced the deportation of the vanquished, their enslavement, and their annihilation through misery, through hunger, steel, and fire. It is because a message of brotherhood had been given to the world, and the world could not entirely forget this message even in the midst of the horrors of war. From generation to generation we observed an upward effort ever since this message of peace had been given. We were confident that it was without any thought of regressing that man had taken the view of moral progress which formed a part of the common heritage of civilized nations. All nations revered, equally, good faith in relations among individuals. All of them had come to accept good faith as the law of their mutual relationship. International morality was little by little emerging and international relationship, like that between individuals, was more and more falling in line with the three precepts of the classical Roman jurists: “Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.” (Live honorably, inflict no harm on another, give each his due.)

Every civilized nation had been impregnated with a common humanism, growth of a long tradition, Christian and liberal. Based on this common heritage and achieved at the price of given experience, each nation, enlightened by the well-conceived interests of man, had understood or was coming to understand that in public as in private affairs loyalty, moderation, and mutual aid were golden rules which none could transgress indefinitely and with impunity.

The defeat, the catastrophe which has fallen upon Germany confirm us in this thought and give only more meaning and more clarity to the solemn warning addressed to the American people by President Roosevelt in his address on 27 May 1940:

“Although our Navy, our guns, and our planes are the first line of defense, it is certain that back of all of that there is the spirit and the morality of a free people which give to their material defense power, support, and efficiency. . . .”

And in this struggle, the echoes of which are still rumbling in our ears, it was indeed those who could rest their strength upon law, nourish their force with justice, who won out. But because we have followed step by step the development of the criminal madness of the defendants and the consequences of that madness throughout these last years, we must conclude that the patrimony of man, of which we are the recipients, is frail indeed, that all kinds of regressions are possible, and that we must with care watch over their heritage. There is not a nation which, ill-educated, badly led by evil masters, would not in the long run revert to the barbarity of the early ages.

The German people whose military virtue we recognize, whose poets and musicians we love, whose application to work we admire, and who did not fail to give examples of probity in the most noble works of the spirit; this German people, which came rather late to civilization, beginning only with the eighth century, had slowly raised itself to the ranks of nations possessing the oldest culture. The contribution to modern or contemporary thought seemed to prove that this conquest of the spirit was final; Kant, Goethe, Johann Sebastian Bach belong to humanity just as much as Calvin, Dante, or Shakespeare; nevertheless, we behold the fact that millions of innocent men have been exterminated on the very soil of this people, by men of this people, in execution of a common plan conceived by their leaders, and this people made not a single effort to revolt.

This is what has become of it because it has scorned the virtues of political freedom, of civic equality, of human fraternity. This is what has become of it, because it forgot that all men are born free and equal before the law, that the essential action of a state has for its purpose the deeper and deeper penetration of a respect for spiritual liberty and fraternal solidarity in social relations and in international institutions.

It allowed itself to be robbed of its conscience and its very soul. Evil masters came who awakened its primitive passions and made possible the atrocities which I have described to you. In truth, the crime of these men is that they caused the German people to retrogress more than 12 centuries.

Their crime is that they conceived and achieved, as an instrument of government, a policy of terrorism toward the whole of the subjugated nations and toward their own people; their crime is that they pursued, as an end in itself, a policy of extermination of entire categories of innocent citizens. That alone would suffice to determine capital punishment. And still, the French Prosecution, represented by M. Faure, intends to present proof of a still greater crime, the crime of attempting “to obliterate from the world certain ideas which are called liberty, independence, security of nations, which are also called faith in the given word and respect for the human person,” the crime of having attempted to kill the very soul, the spirit of France and other occupied nations in the West. We consider that to be the gravest crime committed by these men, the gravest because it is written in the Scriptures, Matthew, XII, 31-32:

“All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy unto the Spirit shall not be forgiven unto men. Whosoever speaketh against the Spirit shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. . . . For the tree is known by its fruit. Race of vipers, how could ye speak good words when ye are evil. . . .”

THE PRESIDENT: [To M. Faure of the French Delegation] Yes, M. Faure.

M. EDGAR FAURE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic): Mr. President, Honorable Judges, I have the honor of delivering to the Tribunal the concluding address of the French Prosecution. This presentation relates more particularly to the sections lettered (I) and (J) of Count Three of the Indictment: oath of allegiance and Germanization; and on the other hand to section (B) of Count Four, persecutions on political, racial, and religious grounds.

First of all I should like to present in a brief introduction the general ideas which govern the plan of my final pleading. The concept of Germanization has been stated in the presentation of M. De Menthon. It consists essentially in imposing upon the inhabitants of occupied territories norms for their political and social life such as the Nazis had determined according to their own doctrine and for their own profit. The combined activities which carried out Germanization or which have Germanization for their purpose, and which are illegal, have been defined as a criminal undertaking against humanity. The complete process of Germanization was employed in certain territories to annex them to the Reich. The Germans intended even before the end of the war to incorporate these territories within their own country. These territories, annexed and then germanized in an absolute manner, are the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Belgian Cantons of Eupen, Malmédy, and Moresnet, and the three French Departments of Haut-Rhin, Bas-Rhin and the Moselle.

These territories can be considered relatively small in comparison with the total area of the territories occupied by the Germans. This in no wise mitigates the reprehensible character of these annexations; moreover, we should note at this point two essential aspects of our subject.

The first proposition: The Germans had conceived and prepared more extensive annexations than those actually carried out in an official manner. For reasons of expediency, they did not proceed with these annexations during the period of time at their disposal.

The second proposition: Annexation, on the other hand, was not the unique or obligatory procedure of Germanization. The Nazis discovered that they could employ different and various means to achieve their purpose of universal domination. The selection of means which vary according to circumstances, to attain and to camouflage an identical result, was characteristic of what has been called Nazi Machiavellism. Their conception is technically much more pliable, more clever, and more dangerous than the classical conception of territorial conquest. In this respect the most brutal competitor has over them the advantage of candor.

To begin with I say that the Germans had formulated the plan to annex more extensive territory. Numerous indications point to this. I would like to give you only two citations.

The first of these is taken from the documentation collected by our colleagues of the American Prosecution, an American document which has not yet been submitted to the Tribunal. I should say in addition that in my final pleading I shall refer only twice to very remarkable American documents. All the other documents which I shall submit will be new ones belonging to the French Prosecution. The document of which I speak now is Number 1155-PS of the American documents, and it appears in the file of documents submitted to you under Number RF-601, which will become, may it please the Tribunal, that number in French documentation.

This document is dated Berlin, 20 June 1940. It bears the notation: “Top Secret Staff Document.” Its title is: “Note for the Dossier on the Conference of 19 June 1940, at Headquarters of General Field Marshal Göring.”

The notes which are included in this document reflect, therefore, the views of the leaders and not individual interpretations. I would like to read to the Tribunal only Paragraph 6 of that document, which is to be found on Page 3. It is the first document bearing Number RF-601 (Document Number 1155-PS), I proceed with the reading of Paragraph 6, Page 3:

“General plans regarding the political development.

“Luxembourg is to be annexed by the Reich. Norway is to become German. Alsace-Lorraine is to be reincorporated into the Reich. An autonomous Breton state is to be created. Considerations are pending concerning Belgium, the special treatment of the Flemish in that country, and the creation of a State of Burgundy.”

The second citation which I shall submit to the Tribunal on this point refers to a French document which I submit as Document Number RF-602. This document comprises the minutes of the interrogation of Dr. Globke, a former assistant of State Secretary of the Ministry of the Interior, Dr. Stuckart. It is dated 25 September 1945. This interrogation was taken by Major Graff of the French Judicial Service.

To the minutes of the interrogation has been added a memorandum which was delivered following the questioning by Dr. Globke. I read a passage from this interrogation, at the beginning of the document, Paragraph 1:

“Question: ‘Have you any knowledge of plans which envisage the annexation of other French territories at the conclusion of peace between Germany and France? (Belfort, Nancy, Bassin de Briey, the coal fields of the North, the so-called “Red Zone”, territory attached to the Government General of Belgium)?’

“Answer: ‘Yes, those plans did exist. They were worked out by Dr. Stuckart, upon the personal instruction of the Führer, and I have seen them. They were communicated to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to the OKW, and to the Armistice Commission in Wiesbaden. All these documents have been destroyed (Dr. Globke maintains). The State Secretary, M. Stuckart, was ordered to deliver a preliminary draft at the headquarters of the Führer (End of 1940, before the launching of the Russian campaign).

“‘After examination the Führer considered the proposal was too moderate; and he ordered provisions for the incorporation of further territories, specifically those along the Channel.

“‘Dr. Stuckart then prepared a second draft, with a map attached, on which the approximate borders were indicated. I have seen it, and I can show it to you roughly on a large scale map of France. I do not know whether this second plan was approved by Hitler.’”

THE PRESIDENT: M. Faure, did you tell us who Dr. Globke was?

M. FAURE: Yes, Mr. President, he was the assistant of Dr. Stuckart, State Secretary in the Ministry of Interior. He styled himself in his interrogation “officer in charge of matters concerning Alsace-Lorraine and Luxembourg in the Ministry of the Interior, since 1940.”

I now read a passage from the attached memorandum. This appears in your document book immediately after the passage I have just read. Still under Document Number RF-602, I now read Paragraph 6 of the memorandum in question; it is the beginning of the document before your eyes.

“The plan of a new Franco-German border was elaborated upon in the Ministry of Interior by the State Secretary Dr. Stuckart, upon the order given to him by Hitler. This plan envisaged that the territory in the north and the east of France which, for historical, political, racial, geographical, or any other reasons ostensibly did not belong to western but to central Europe, should be given back to Germany. A first draft was submitted to Hitler at his general headquarters and it was approved by him in full. Hitler nevertheless wanted . . .”

DR. STAHMER: The Defense has not received these documents. Consequently, even today we are not in a position to follow the presentation. Above all, we are not in a position to check individually whether the validity of these documents really exists at all.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Faure, is that correct, that none of these documents have been deposited in the Defense Information Center?

M. FAURE: They have been deposited with two photostatic copies in the document center of the defendants’ counsel. Moreover, before I complete my statement, I think that the Defense Counsel will have full opportunity to study this very brief document and to make any observations which he may desire; but I can give you assurance that those documents were delivered.

THE PRESIDENT: What assurance can you give me that the orders which the Tribunal has given have been carried out?

M. FAURE: The documents have been delivered to the Defense Counsel in accordance with instruction and two photostatic copies have been delivered in the document room of the Defense. These documents are, moreover, in the German language, which should greatly facilitate the task of the Defense Counsel, as the interrogation was taken in the German language by an officer of the French Judiciary Services.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, did you hear what M. Faure said?

DR. STAHMER: I should certainly not raise any objections if these documents had actually been sent to our document room and put at our disposal. This morning I and several others looked into the matter and made an effort to determine whether the documents were really there. We could not find out. Dr. Steinbauer and I went there; we could not find the documents. I shall go there again to see whether they may not have come in the meantime.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has stated on a variety of occasions that they attach a great importance to the documents being deposited in the defendants’ Information Center and copies supplied in accordance with the regulations which they have laid down. Whether that has been done on this occasion, is disputed by Dr. Stahmer. The Tribunal proposes therefore to have the matter investigated as soon as possible and to see exactly whether the rules have been carried out or not. And in future they hope that they will be carried out with the greatest strictness. In the meantime, I think it will be most convenient for you to continue.

M. FAURE: The defendants’ counsel tells me that the documents are in the Defense Counsel Room, but they have not yet been distributed. It can be seen, therefore, that the orders were fully respected; but because of the burden of work it may be that the Defense may not individually have received these documents. In any event, I am prepared to submit immediately to the Defense Counsel mainly concerned with this, photostatic copies which will enable them to follow my reading of the documents, which, incidentally, are quite brief.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will have the facts investigated by the Marshal. And in the meantime, you can continue. The Marshal of the Court will immediately find out and report to the Tribunal what the facts are about the deposition of the documents and the time at which they were deposited. In the meantime you can continue, and we shall be glad if you will assist the defendants’ counsel by giving them any copies you may have available.

M. FAURE: I was reading then, Document Number RF-602, the attached memorandum. If the Tribunal wishes to follow the reading of this document will it kindly take the book entitled “Exposé” or “Presentation,” and turn to Page 6 thereof. The passage which I am now coming to is the last paragraph of Page 6. “Introduction—Exposé,” Page 6, third and last paragraph, I am continuing:

“A first draft was submitted to Hitler at his general headquarters and was approved by him as a whole; but, nevertheless, he called for an enlargement of the territory falling to Germany, in particular, along the Channel coast. The final draft was to serve as the basis for future discussions with the administrative departments concerned. These discussions did not take place. The intended frontier followed approximately a course beginning at the mouth of the Somme, turning eastward along the northern edge of the Paris Basin and Champagne to the Argonne, then bent to the south crossing Burgundy, and westward of the Franche-Comte, reaching the Lake of Geneva. For some districts alternative solutions were suggested.”

These German plans were indicated on several occasions by specific measures having to do with the territories in question, measures which might be designated preannexation measures.

I come now to the second proposal which I referred to a while ago. With or without annexation, the Germans had in mind to take and maintain under their domination all the occupied countries. As a matter of fact their determination was to germanize and to nazify all of Western Europe and even the African Continent. This intention appears from the very fact of the conspiracy which has been laid bare before the Tribunal so completely by my colleagues of the American Prosecution. That will also be shown by the applications made of it, of which the principal ones will be retraced in this concluding address.

I merely want to recall to the Tribunal this general point that the plan for Germanic predominance is defined according to the German interpretation itself in a public diplomatic document, which is the Tripartite Pact of 27 September 1940 between Germany, Italy, and Japan. In this connection I would like to quote before the Tribunal a few sentences of a comment made upon this treaty by an official German author, Von Freytagh-Loringhoven, a member of the Reichstag, who wrote a book on German foreign policy from 1933 to 1941. This book was published in a French translation in Paris at the publishing house of Sorlot, during the occupation.

I do not want to submit this as a document, but merely as a quotation from a published work, a book, which is here in your hands. I read from Page 311:

“This treaty granted Germany and Italy a dominant position in the new European order, and it accorded Japan a similar role in the area of eastern Asia.”

I am now skipping a sentence that has no significance.

“At first glance, one could realize that the Tripartite Pact had in mind a double purpose.”

I shall skip the following sentence which is without interest, and I go to the sentence dealing with the second purpose:

“Moreover, it entrusted the parties with a mission for the future, that is to say, the establishment of a new order in Europe and eastern Asia.

“Without seeking to lessen the importance of the first question, there can be no doubt that this second purpose, dealing with the future, involved vaster projects and was, in fact, the principal point. For the first time in an international treaty, in the Tripartite Pact, the terms ‘space’ and ‘orientation’ were used linking one with the other.”

I now go to Page 314 where the author makes a remark which appears to me to be significant:

“Now, the Tripartite Pact places a clear delimitation of the wider spaces created by nature on our globe. The concept of space, it is true, is employed explicitly only for the Far East, but it is equally applicable to Europe and that within this conception Africa is comprised. The latter is certainly politically and economically a complement, or if one wishes, an annex of Europe. Moreover, it is obvious that the Tripartite Pact fixes the limits of the two great regions or spaces reserved for the partners, that the pact tacitly recognizes the third area, that is Asia, properly speaking, and that it leaves aside the fourth, the American Continent, thus leaving the latter to its own destiny. In this way the whole surface of the globe is concerned; and an idea, which as yet has not been considered except in theory, was given the significance of a political principle derived from international law.”

I have felt that this text was of interest because, on the one hand, it clarifies the fact that the African Continent is itself included in the space reserved to the German claimants, and on the other, it states that the government of such an immense space by Germany constitutes international law. This pretense of acting juridically is one of the characteristics of the undertaking to germanize the world from 1940 to 1945. It is undoubtedly one of the reasons which inspired Nazi Germany to proceed only on rare occasions by the annexation of territories.

Annexation is not indispensable for the domination of a great area. It can be replaced by other methods which correspond rather accurately to the usual term of “vassalization.”

THE PRESIDENT: Do you not think this will be a convenient time to break off?

[A recess was taken.]

M. FAURE: Mr. President, before resuming my brief, I should like to ask the Tribunal if they could agree to hear, during the afternoon session, a witness who is M. Reuter, President of the Chamber of Luxembourg.

THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, M. Faure, if that is convenient to you, the Tribunal is quite willing to hear the witness you name.

M. FAURE: I propose on those conditions to have him heard at the beginning of the second part of the afternoon session.

I pointed out a moment ago that the different methods of disguised annexation can correspond to the term “vassalization.” From a German author I shall borrow a formula which is eloquent. It is Dr. Sperl, in an article in the Krakauer Zeitung, who used this expression: “A differentiation in methods of German domination.” In using, thus, indirect and differentiated methods of domination, the Germans acted in political matters, as we have seen before, in the same way as they acted in economic matters. I had the opportunity to point out to the Tribunal, in my first brief, that the Germans immediately seized the keys of economic life. If you will permit me to use this Latin expression, I shall say as far as sovereignty in the occupied countries is concerned, they insured for themselves the power of the keys, “potestas clavium.” They seized the keys of sovereignty in each country. In that fashion, without being obliged to abolish officially national sovereignty as in the case of annexation, they were able to control and direct the exercise of this sovereignty.

Beginning with these principle ideas, the plan of my brief was conceived as follows:

In the first chapter I shall examine the regime in annexed territories where national sovereignty was abolished. In a second chapter I shall examine the mechanism of the seizure of sovereignty for the benefit of the occupying power in the regions which were not annexed. Then it will be suitable to examine the results of these usurpations of sovereignty and the violation of the rights of the population which resulted from them. I thought it necessary that I should group these results by dealing with the principal ones in a third and fourth chapter. The third chapter will be devoted to spiritual Germanization, that is, to the propaganda in the very extensive sense that the German concept gives to this term. Chapter four, and the last, will bear the heading, “The Administrative Organization of Criminal Action.”

I would now like to point out, as far as the documentation of my brief is concerned, I have forced myself to limit the number of texts which will be presented to the Tribunal; and I shall attempt to make my quotations as short as possible. For the fourth chapter, for example, I might point out that the French Delegation examined more than 2,000 documents, counting only the original German documents, of which I have kept only about fifty.

I should like also to point out to the Tribunal how the documents will be presented in the document books which you have before you. The documents are numbered at the top of the page to the right; they are numbered in pencil and correspond to the order in which I shall quote them. Each dossier has a pagination which begins with the number 100.

I would ask the Tribunal now to take up the document book entitled: “The Annexed Territories of Eupen, Malmédy, and Moresnet.”

In carrying out, without any attempt or cloak of legality, the annexation of occupied territories, Germany did something much more serious than violating the rules of law. It is the negation of the very idea of international law. The lawyer, Bustamante y Sirven, in his treatise on international law expresses himself in the following terms regarding this subject:

“It can be observed that never have we alluded at any moment to the hypothesis that an occupation terminates because the occupying power takes possession of the occupied territory through his military forces and without any convention. The motive for this mission is very simple and very clear. Since conquest cannot be considered as a legitimate mode of acquisition, these results are uniquely the result of force and can be neither determined nor measured by the rules of law.”

On the other hand, I have said just now that Germanization did not necessarily imply annexation. Inversely, we might conceive that annexation did not necessarily mean Germanization. We shall prove to the Tribunal that annexation was only a means, the most brutal one of Germanization, that is to say, nazification.

The annexation of the Belgian cantons of Eupen, Malmédy, and Moresnet was made possible by a German law of 18 May 1940 and was the subject of an executive decree of 23 May 1940. These are public regulations, which were published in the Reichsgesetzblatt, Pages 777 and 804. I should like to ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this.

As a result of this decree the three Belgian districts were attached to the province of the Rhineland, district of Aachen.

A decree dated 24 September 1940 installed local German government and German municipal laws. A decree of 28 July 1940 introduced the German judicial system in these territories. Local courts were established in Malmédy, in Eupen and St. Vith, and district courts at Aachen, which could judge cases on equality with the local courts.

The Court of Appeal of Cologne replaced the Belgian Court of Cassation for cases where the latter would have been competent. German law was introduced in these territories by the decree of 23 May 1940, signed by Hitler, Göring, Frick, and Lammers and was effective as from September 1940.

A decree of 3 September 1940 regulates the details of the transition of Belgian law into German law in the domains of private law, commercial law, and law of procedure.

By the decree of annexation German nationality was conferred upon the inhabitants of German racial origin in this Belgian territory. The details of this measure were specified and stipulated by the decree of 23 September 1941. All persons who had acquired Belgian nationality as a result of the ceding of these territories could, according to the terms of the decree, resume their German nationality, with the exception, however, of Jews and Gypsies. All the other inhabitants, on condition that they were racially German, could acquire German nationality, which might be revoked after 10 years.

I shall not take up at great length the situation which resulted from the annexation of these Belgian territories, for the developments of the situation are analogous to those which we shall examine in the other countries. I simply would like to point out a special detail of this subject: A law of 4 February 1941, signed by Hitler, Göring, Frick, and Lammers granted the citizens of Eupen, Malmédy, and Moresnet representation in the Reichstag, that is to say, the benefits of the German parliamentary regime, the democratic character of which is known.

I shall ask the Tribunal to now take up the file entitled “Alsace and Lorraine.” There is a file, “Exposé,” and a file, “Documents.”

Contrary to what took place in the Belgian cantons the Germans did not officially proclaim by law the annexation of the three French departments which constitute Alsace and Lorraine. The fact of this annexation, however, is in no way doubtful. I should like to remind the Tribunal here of extracts from a document which has already been submitted to it, which is Document Number RF-3 of the French documentation. It concerns a deposition made before the French High Court of Justice, by the French Ambassador, Léon Noël, who was a member of the Armistice Delegation. I did not put this document in your book because I shall cite only one sentence from it. The document has already been submitted to the Tribunal, as I have just said.

Ambassador Noël, in this document, pointed out the conversations which he had at the time of the signing of the Armistice Convention with the German representatives, notably with the accused Keitel and Jodl. The sentence which I would like to remind the Tribunal of is as follows:

“. . . and likewise, in thinking of Alsace and Lorraine, I required them to say that the administrative and judicial authorities of the occupied territories would keep their positions and functions and would be able to correspond freely with the government.”

The affirmations are dated 22 June 1940.

I am now going to submit to the Tribunal a document of 3 September 1940, which is a note of protest of the French Delegation, addressed to the Armistice Commission. I submit this to the Tribunal in order that the Tribunal may see that during the period which elapsed between these two dates, a period which covers barely 2 months, the Nazis had applied a series of measures which created, in an incontestable manner, a state of annexation.

This document which I submit bears the Number RF-701 of the French documentation. It is the first document of the document book which the Tribunal has before it. All the documents in this chapter will bear numbers beginning with the Number 7, that is to say, beginning with RF-701.

This document comes from the file of the French High Court of Justice, and the copy submitted to the Tribunal has been certified by the clerk of this jurisdiction. I should like to quote from this document, beginning with the fourth paragraph on Page 1 of the Document Number RF-701:

“1. Prefects, subprefects, and mayors, as well as a number of local officials whose tendencies were considered suspicious, have been evicted from their respective offices.

“2. Monseigneur Heintz, bishop appointed under the Concordat to Metz, was driven from his diocese. Several members of the clergy, secular as well as regular, were also expelled under the pretext that they were French in tongue and mentality.

“3. Monseigneur Ruch, the bishop appointed under the Concordat to Strasbourg, was forbidden to enter his diocese and, consequently, to resume his ministry.

“4. M. Joseph Bürckel was appointed on 7 August, Gauleiter of Lorraine and M. Robert Wagner, Gauleiter of Alsace. The first of these provinces was attached to the Gau of Saar-Palatinate; the second to the Gau of Baden.

“5. Alsace and Lorraine were incorporated in the civil administration of Germany. The frontier and custom police were then placed on the western limits of these territories.

“6. The railroads were incorporated in the German network.

“7. The post office, telegraph, and telephone administration was taken over by the German postal authorities, who gradually substituted their own personnel for the Alsatian personnel.

“8. The French language was eliminated, not only in administrative life but also from public use.

“9. Names of localities were germanized.

“10. The racial legislation of Germany was introduced into the country; and as a result of this measure, the Jews were expelled as well as nationals which the German authorities considered to be intruders.

“11. Only the Alsatians and Lorrainers who agreed to consider themselves as being of German stock were permitted to return to their homes.

“12. The property of associations of a political character and of Jews was confiscated as well as property acquired after 11 November 1918 by French persons.

“Nothing illustrates better the spirit which animates these measures, in themselves arbitrary, than the words pronounced publicly 16 July at Strasbourg by M. Robert Wagner. Stressing the elimination of all elements of foreign stock or nationality which was taking place, this high official affirmed that the purpose of Germany was to settle once and for all the Alsatian question.

“Such a policy, which could not be the function of subordinate occupational authorities, was equivalent to disguised annexation and is strictly contrary to agreements subscribed to by Germany at Rethondes.”

Numerous protests were subsequently lodged by the French Delegation. We have attached to our file a list of these protests; there are 62 of them. This list is found in the book under the Document Number RF-702.

The development of the German policy may now be studied through three series of measures which were carried out. First, a body of measures destined to assure the elimination of what can be called the French complex, that is to say, of everything which can tie an inhabitant of an annexed country to his way of life and to his national tradition. Second, a body of measures destined to impose German standards in all domains of life of the population. Third, the measures of transportation and of colonization. We use here the German terminology.

First, elimination of the French complex.

The elimination of French nationality and of French law resulted automatically from the measures which we shall study relative to the imposition of German standards. I should like to point out particularly, that the Germans tried to fight against all elements of French organization which might have survived the suppression of their national juridical conditions.

At first they proscribed, in an extraordinarily brutal way, the use of the French language. Several regulations were formulated relative to this. I shall cite only the third regulation, bearing the date of 16 August 1940, entitled, “Concerning the Reintroduction of the Mother Tongue.” This document is published in the Journal of German Ordinances or Decrees of 1940, (Verordnungsblatt) on Page 2. It bears Document Number RF-703. The Tribunal will find it in the document book after the Document Number 702, which is the list of French protests. I should like to read a large part of this document, which is interesting; and I shall start at the beginning:

“Following the measures undertaken with a view of reintroducing the mother tongue of the Alsatian people, I decree as follows:

“1. Official Language.

“All public services in Alsace, including administration of communes, of corporations within the meaning of civil law, public establishments, churches, and foundations, as well as tribunals, will use exclusively the German language orally and in writing. The Alsatian population will use exclusively its German mother tongue in both oral and written applications to the above establishments.

“2. Christian and Family Names.

“Christian names will be exclusively used in their German form orally and in writing, even when they have been inscribed in the French language on the birth register. As soon as this present decree comes into force, only German Christian names may be inscribed upon the birth register. Alsatians who bear French Christian names, which do not exist in German form, are asked to apply for a change of their Christian names in order to show their attachment to Germanism. The same holds good for French family names.”

I shall skip the following sentence and go to Paragraph 4:

“4. It is forbidden to draw up, in the French language, contracts and accounts under private seal of whatever nature they may be. Anything printed on business paper and on forms must be drawn up in the German language. Books and accounts of all business firms, establishments, and companies must be kept in the German language.

“5. Inscriptions in Cemeteries.

“In the future, inscriptions on crosses and on tombstones can be written only in the German language. This provision applies as well to a new inscription as to the renewal of old inscriptions.”

These measures were accompanied by a press campaign. Because of the resistance of the population, this campaign was carried on throughout the occupation.

I should like to make one citation of an article which is particularly significant, published in the Dernières Nouvelles de Strasbourg on 30 March 1943. This is not introduced as a document; it is a quotation of a published article. When we read such an article, we think it at first a joke; but we see, subsequently, that it is serious because repressive measures had to be taken against people who sabotaged the German language. I cite:

“Germans greet one another with ‘Heil Hitler.’ We do not want any more French greetings, which we still hear constantly in a thousand different forms. The elegant salutation ‘Bonjour’ is not made for these rough Alsatian throats, accustomed to the German tongue since the distant epoch of Osfried von Weissenburg. The Alsatian hurts our ears when he says ‘boschurr.’ When he says ‘Au Revoir,’ the French think they are listening to an Arabic word, which sounds like ‘arwar.’ Sometimes they say ‘Adje’ (Adieu).

“These phonetic monstrosities which disfigure our beautiful Alsatian-Germanic dialect resemble a thistle in a flower bed. Let us weed them out! They are not worthy of Alsace. Do you believe feminine susceptibility is wounded by saying ‘Frau’ instead of ‘Madame’? We are sure that Alsatians will drop the habit of linguistic whims so that the authorities will not have to use rigorous measures against saboteurs of the German language.”

After this attack on the language, the National Socialists attacked music. This is the purpose of a decree of 1 March 1941, signed by Dressler, the Chief of the Department of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda in the Office of the Chief of Civil Administration for Alsace.

This is Document Number RF-704, published in the German Official Journal (Verordnungsblatt) Page 170 of the year 1941. I shall simply cite the title of this decree: “Decree Concerning Undesirable and Injurious Music.” The first 3 lines are:

“Musical works contrary to the cultural will of National Socialists will be entered on a list of undesirable and injurious music by the Department for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda.”

After music, now, we have the question of hairdress. In this regulation the ridiculous constantly disputes supremacy with the odious. I would almost like to ask the Tribunal to pardon me, but, truly, nothing in this is invented by us.

Here is Document Number RF-705. It is a decree of 13 December 1941 published in the Official Bulletin of 1941, Page 744. This Document RF-705 concerns the wearing of French berets (Basque berets) in Alsace. I read only the first paragraph:

“The wearing of French berets (Basque berets) is forbidden in Alsace. Under this prohibition are included all berets which by form or appearance resemble French berets.”

I may add that any violation of this decree was punishable by fine or imprisonment.

The leaders also undertook a long struggle against French flags which the inhabitants kept in their houses. I cite as an example Document Number RF-706, a German administrative document which we found in the archives of the Gau Administration of Strasbourg. It is dated 19 February 1941. I read 3 paragraphs of this document.

“The Gauleiter desires that the Alsatian population be recommended by the organization of the Block- and Zellenleiter to rip up the French flags still in possession of the people and to use them in a suitable way for household needs.

“By the 1st of next May no French flag should be in private hands. This goal should be attained in a way by which the Blockleiter are to visit each household and recommend the families to use the flags for household needs. It should also be pointed out that after the 1st of next May corresponding conclusions shall be drawn concerning the attitude of owners if, after this date, French flags are still found in private possession.”

The following document is our Document Number RF-707, which is also an administrative memorandum on the same subject, dated Strasbourg, 26 April 1941, of which I should simply like to read the last sentence:

“If, after 1 June 1941, Alsatians are found still to have French flags in their possession, they are to be sent to a concentration camp for one year.”

The Nazis feared French influence to such a degree that they even took a special measure to prevent the coming to Alsace of French workers among the laborers brought into this territory for compulsory labor service. This is the purpose of a memorandum of 7 September 1942 of the civil administration in Alsace, which is our Document Number RF-708, also found in the archives of the Gauleitung of Strasbourg. I read the first few lines of this Document Number RF-708.

“Given the general situation of the labor market, the Chief of the Civil Administration in Alsace has decided that foreign labor from all European countries could, in the future, be used in Alsace. There is but one exception, for French and Belgians, who cannot be employed in Alsace . . . .”

The German undertaking against the French sentiment of Alsatians . . .

THE PRESIDENT: The translation which came through to me came to me as “must.” It came through that the foreign workers of all countries of Europe must, in the future, be used. The word is “pouvait.” That does not mean “must,” does it? It is “pouvait.” Does not that mean “could”?

M. FAURE: “Could,” according to necessity. The interesting aspect is that those who are French may not work there, even if labor is needed in Alsace.

The German undertaking against the French sentiments of the Alsatians found its complementary aspect in the attempt also to destroy, on the outside, anything which might be an indication of Alsace belonging to the motherland, France. I shall cite one example in relation to this point. This is our Document Number RF-709.

It is a letter of the German Embassy in Paris, 7 May 1941, which is reproduced in a memorandum of the French Delegation, which is found in the archives of the government. I read this Document Number RF-709, which is short:

“The German Embassy has the honor to point out the following to the General Delegation of the French Government in occupied territory:

“The German Embassy has been informed that in a series of reports on a theme concerning the fatherland, a French radio station in the unoccupied territory, on 16 or 17 April 1941, about 2100 hours, is said to have made a broadcast about the village of Brumath.

“As Brumath, near Strasbourg, is in a German language territory, the German Embassy requests that they inform it if such a broadcast was actually made.”

There exist numerous claims and protests of this kind, which fortunately have often an anecdotal character. We must now cite two especially serious cases, for they included assault, flagrant violations of sovereignty, and even crime.

The first case concerns the seizure and profanation of the treasure of the Cathedral of Strasbourg. I shall submit, concerning this subject, Document Number RF-710, which is a letter of protest of 14 August 1943 written by General Bérard, President of the French Delegation of the Armistice Commission. I read the beginning of the letter and repeat that the date is 14 August 1943:

“Dear General,

“From the beginning of the war, the treasure of Strasbourg Cathedral and the property of certain parishes of this diocese had been entrusted by Monseigneur Ruch, Bishop of Strasbourg, to the Beaux-Arts Department. This department had put them in a safe place in the castles of Hautefort and of Bourdeilles in Dordogne, where they still were on the date of 20 May 1943.

“The treasure and this property included, in particular, the pontificalia reserved for the exclusive use of the Bishop, several of which were his personal property, the relics of saints, vessels, or objects for the performance of ceremonies.

“After having sought on several occasions—but in vain—to obtain the consent of Monseigneur Ruch, the Ministerial Counsellor Kraft, on 20 May, requested not only the prefect of Dordogne, but also the director of religious matters, for authority to remove the objects deposited. Faced with the refusal of these high officials, he declared that the repatriation to Alsace of the property of the Catholic Church would be entrusted to the Sicherheitspolizei.

“As a result, at dawn on 21 May, the castles of Hautefort and Bourdeilles were opened and occupied by troops, despite the protests of the guardian. The sacred objects were placed in trucks and taken to an unknown destination.

“This seizure, moreover, was extended to consecrated vessels and ceremonial objects and the relics of saints worshipped by the faithful. The seizure of these sacred objects by laymen not legally authorized and the conditions under which the operation was carried out aroused the emotion and unanimous reprobation of the faithful.”

Relative to this document I would like to emphasize to the Tribunal one fact which we shall find frequently hereafter, and which is, in our opinion, very important in this Trial. It is the constant interference and collaboration of different or diverse German administrations. Thus, the Tribunal must through this document see that Ministerial Counsellor Kraft, belonging to the civilian service dealing with national education, appeals to the police of the SS to obtain objects which he cannot obtain through his own efforts.

The second case which I would like to cite concerns the University of Strasbourg. From the beginning of the war the University of Strasbourg, which was one of the finest in France, had withdrawn to Clermont-Ferrand to continue its teaching there. After the occupation of Alsace and since this occupation really meant annexation, it was not reinstated in Strasbourg and remained in its city of refuge. The Nazis expressed their great disapproval of this in numerous threatening memoranda.

We would like to submit Document Number RF-711 relative to this. In this document we shall again come across the Ministerial Counsellor, Herbert Kraft, about whom I spoke in the preceding document. The document, which I submit, bears the Document Number RF-711 and is an original signed by Kraft. It was found in the archives of the German Embassy. In this memorandum, which is dated 4 July 1941, Counsellor Kraft expresses his disappointment at the result of steps which he had undertaken with the Rector of the University of Strasbourg, M. Danjon.

I believe that it is adequate if I read a very short passage of this memorandum in order to show the insolence and the threatening methods which the Germans used, even in the part of France which was not yet occupied. The passage which I am going to read will be the last paragraph on Page 2 of Document Number RF-711. Mr. Kraft relates the end of his conversation with the rector. I cite:

“I cut off the conversation, rose, and asked him, by chance, whether the decisions of Admiral Darlan did not represent for him an order from his government. As I went out I added, ‘I hope that you will be arrested.’ He ran after me, made me repeat my remark, and called out, ironically, that this would be a great honor for him.”

This document gives an amusing impression, but the matter as a whole was very serious.

The 15th of June 1943 the German Embassy wrote a note which I submit as Document Number RF-712. This document is an extract from the archives of the High Court of Justice, and has been certified by the clerk of that jurisdiction. Here is the text of this Document RF-712. I shall not read the beginning of the document:

“The German Embassy considers it very desirable to find a solution of the affair of the University of Strasbourg at Clermont-Ferrand.

“We would be happy to learn that no further publication would appear under the heading ‘University of Strasbourg’ so that new disagreements may not result from publications of that kind.

“The German Embassy has taken note of the fact that the Ministry of National Education will no longer fill vacant professorial chairs.

“Furthermore, it is requested that in the future no examination certificates be awarded under the title ‘University of Strasbourg.’”

I must, in concluding this subject of the University of Strasbourg, point out to the Tribunal a fact which is notorious, that is that Thursday, 25 November 1943, the German police took possession of the buildings of the University of Strasbourg in Clermont-Ferrand, arrested the professors and students, screened them, and deported a great number of persons. During this operation, they even shot at two professors; one was killed and the other seriously wounded.

I will be able to produce a document relative to this; but I think that is not indispensable, since there are no proofs for the Prosecution that these murders were committed under orders which definitely show governmental responsibility.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Faure, did you say that you had or had not got proof of the facts that you have just stated about the seizure of the property of the university?

M. FAURE: I said this, Mr. President: We consider that these facts are facts of public knowledge; but because of the interpretation which was given by the Tribunal, I have considered that it would be better to prove it by a document. As this document was not added to my file at that time, this document will be submitted as an appendix. I am going to read a passage of this document; but I should like to explain that it is not found in its proper place, as I added it to the brief after the statement of the Tribunal the other day on the interpretation of facts of “public knowledge.”

THE PRESIDENT: The Court will adjourn now.

Tomorrow being Saturday, the Tribunal will sit from 10 o’clock in the morning until 1 o’clock. We will then adjourn.

DR. KAUFFMANN: It was said that this afternoon there will be a witness. I would like to ask that this testimony be postponed to another day. I believe that we have reached a so-called silent agreement that we shall be notified in advance as to whether there will be witnesses and what the subject of their evidence will be.

I do not know whether there will be cross-examination; but the possibility exists, of course, and pertinent questions can only be put when we know, first of all, who the witness is to be, and secondly, what the subject will be on which the witness is to be cross-examined, perhaps just a clue.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not think it is necessary to postpone the evidence of this witness. As a matter of courtesy on the part of the Prosecution, it would be well, perhaps, but the subject matter—not necessarily the name, but the subject matter upon which the witness is to give evidence—should be communicated to the Defense so that they may prepare themselves upon that subject matter for any cross-examination.

I understand that this afternoon you propose to call a witness who will deal with the circumstances in respect to the German occupation of Luxembourg. That is right, is it not?

M. FAURE: Yes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you will give the defendants’ counsel the subject matter upon which they can prepare themselves for cross-examination. I am told that this subject matter has already been communicated to the defendants and is on their bulletin board at the present moment.

[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]

Afternoon Session

MARSHAL: May it please the Court, I desire to announce that the Defendants Kaltenbrunner, Seyss-Inquart, and Streicher will be absent from this afternoon’s session on account of illness.

THE PRESIDENT: The question which was raised this morning about certain documents has been investigated, and the Tribunal understands that the documents were placed in the Defense Counsel’s Information Center yesterday; but it may be that the misunderstanding arose owing to those documents not having been in any way indexed, and it would, I think, be very helpful to the Defense Counsel if Prosecuting Counsel could, with the documents, deposit also some sort of index which would enable the Defense Counsel to find the documents.

M. FAURE: It is understood that we shall present a table of contents of the documents.

THE PRESIDENT: I think if you could, yes.

M. FAURE: Your Honors, I was speaking this morning of the incident which occurred at the Strasbourg faculty in Clermont-Ferrand, on 25 November 1943. I pointed out to the Tribunal that I shall produce to this effect a document. This document has not been classified in the document book, and I shall ask the Tribunal to accept it as an annex number or as the last document of this book, if that is agreeable.

This is a report of M. Hoeppfner, Dean of the Faculty of Letters, established on 8 January 1946, and transmitted from Lorraine to the French Prosecution. I should like simply to read to the Tribunal, in order not to take up too much of its time, the two passages which constitute the texts which were submitted to it as an appendix.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you got the original document here?

M. FAURE: Yes, Your Honor.

“It is the 25th of November 1943, a Thursday. The 10 o’clock class is drawing to an end. As I come out of the room, a student posted at a window in the hall signals me to approach and shows me in the inner court in front of the Department of Physics a Wehrmacht soldier with helmet, boots, a submachine gun in his arm, mounting guard. ‘Let us try to flee.’ Too late. At the same moment, wild cries arise from all directions—the corridors, the stairways are filled with the sound of heavy boots, the clanking of weapons, fierce cries, a frantic shuffling. A soldier rushes down the hall shouting, ‘Everybody in the courtyard—tell the others.’ Naturally, everyone understood.”

Second passage:

“One of our people, Paul Collomp, was cold-bloodedly murdered with a shot in the chest, and an eyewitness confirms the fact. Alas, it is only too true. Asked to leave the Secretariat where he was, Collomp no doubt obeyed too slowly to suit the policeman, for the latter gave him a violent blow on the back; instinctively, our colleague turned around, and the other then fired a shot directly into his chest. Death was almost immediate, but the body was left lying there alone until that evening. Another rumor reached us. We didn’t know from where. A colleague in Protestant Theology, M. Eppel, was apparently also shot down, in his own house, where they had gone to look for him. He received, as was later learned, several bullet shots in the abdomen but miraculously recovered and even survived the horrors of Buchenwald Camp.”

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us