difficulties concerning feeding if all of a sudden a column, like yours, of 5000 men is captured and has to be fed by advancing troops. had difficulties in feeding us, they could have allowed the prisoners of war to receive the products which the civilian population among the Soviet citizens was willing to give it.
Q I will talk about that later. You say that you were in a column of 5000 prisoners. Could, you tell me how strong the guards were for this column of 5000 men? many Germans. I cannot give you exact figures; not now.
Q All right. I understand that you cannot give me this answer in correct figures, but would you describe to the Court just how the distance was between individual guards which were marching alongside the column on either side? group, five or six steps behind. That is how the distance was covered. one side, German troops marching, and also two or three individually, if I understood you correctly.
Q Were these older troops, older people, or young soldiers?
A Those were soldiers of the German Army. They were of all ages. the Russian prisoners that they would be shot in case they broke out of the column?. no warnings of any kind.
Q Not even before the column started to march?
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we should break off now.
(A recess was taken until 14.00 hours.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has made its decision upon the witness and documents to be called and produced on behalf of the first four defendants and that decision will be communicated as soon as possible this afternoon to counsel for those defendants and will also be posted in the Defendants' Information Center. for France with reference to the calling of two additional witnesses. The Tribunal would wish that if it is desired to call any witnesses after closing the case of behalf of any of the chief prosecutors, that a written application should be made to the Tribunal for the calling of such witnesses and the Tribunal also desires me to draw the attention of Counsel for the Prosecution and Counsel for the Defense to the terms of Article 24, Subsection (e), which refers to rebutting evidence. In the event of Counsel for the Prosecution or Counsel for the Defense wish to cal rebutting evidence, when the proper time comes after the case for the Prosecution and the Defense has been closed, such application to call rebutting evidence must be made to the Tribunal in writing,
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I wonder if the Tribunal would allow me to say something on a matter on which I promised to get information yesterday?
Your Lordship will remember that Dr. Horn asked for a withdrawn edition of the "Daily Telegraph" of the 31st of August, 1939, and I promised the Tribunal I would make inquiries. I have had a telegram from the "Daily Telegraph", which I received this morning and it says:
"No edition of the "Daily Telegraph" withdrawn on 31 August, 1939 or any other day thereabouts. The "Telegraph" of the 31st gave a brief paragraph saying 'Meeting Henderson-Ribbentrop had taken place' but without details.
"On 1st September carried summary of German sixteen points for Poland as broadcast by the German radio. Actual text of the note did not appear until September 2, when extracted from the Foreign Office White Paper of all relevant documents."
that I should nut it before the Tribunal and I propose to send a copy of that to Dr. Horn.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Sir David. I think that may necessitate a slight variation in the order which the Tribunal was proposing to make.
DR. NELTE (Counsel for defendant Keitel): Regarding the question of Generals Halder and Warlimont, Mr. President, permit me to request that you answer a question for me, namely, whether the Court has already decided that Halder and Warlimont, whom I have already named as witnesses, and whose relevancy has been admitted by the Prosecution, will be approved as witnesses for Keitel so that we can count with certainty on their appearing in Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. What I meant to state this morning was that the Defense Counsel should decide whether they wanted to cross-examine them now or call them as witnesses on behalf of one of another of the defendants and therefore, that was a decision that the Defense Counsel would be able to call them on behalf of one of the defendants if they determined to do so. Therefore, they can be called for Keitel, unless of course they are called before. If the defendant Goering wanted to call them then they would have to be examined on behalf of Keitel when they were called for Goering because of the fundamental rule that a witness is only to be called once.
DR. NELTE: Defense Counsel, so for as Generals Halder and Warlimont are concerned, is satisfied if these generals are called during the course of the Defense case.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.
Now Dr. Laternser -
DR. LATERNSER (Counsel for the General Staff of the OKW): I have only a few more questions to ask.
(Eugene Alexandrovich Vlacha resumed the stand and testified further as follows:) BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q. Witness, you said this forenoon that the four to five thousand Russian prisoners during their march to the camp were accommodated in a stable.
Was this stable roofed?
A. It was a usual village barn and as a result of the fact that the farm had been evacuated by the inhabitants this barn had not been cleaned and was completely abandoned and if one can add, during the course of that day it rained and I will add that it was half covered with mud and it was, of course, impossible to lie down in the barn as the floor was covered by manure and most of the people remained outside.
Q. In this case was there any possibility of accommodating these prisoners better?
A. It is very difficult for me to answer that question for I am not at all acquainted with the locality where I was taken prisoner and on the other hand, we were brought to this village late at night and I do not know whether there were more convenient places where we could be quartered.
Q. That is to say, on this evening on which you reached this village, you yourself did not see any possibility for better accommodations?
A. It is not because I did not see better quarters but it was dark and therefore, I could not observe the village, although it was a rather large village and there was certainly a certain number of houses where four, five thousand people might have been easily quartered for a more convenient night,
Q. I have, one last question. You said that in the prisoner camp you were not employed in your capacity as a physician. Have you even known that the Germans placed medical materials at the disposal of prisoners in camps so that they could be treated?
A. At first being evacuated from one camp to another we did not receive any medical equipment from the Germans but later on, when I was in a stationery camp, Camp 35, medical equipment was issued but in quite inadequate quantities to fully cover the needs of the wounded.
DR. LATERNSER: I have no further questions.
DR. BABEL (Counsel for SS): I have only one question. BY DR. BABEL:
Q. Witness, you have stated that the stable was evacuated. What do you mean by that term?
A. I mean by that that the entire herd of cattle that were in the stable were evacuated out of the zone of military operations.
Q. By whom was this done?
A. This was carried out by the inhabitants of the village, who had been evacuated to the east, together with the Soviet troops who had not been surrounded.
Q. That is to say, you were brought back to Russian territory?
A. From this village, yes.
DR. BABEL: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any other defendants' counsel wish to ask questions? BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, were any SS unites used in guarding the prisoners of war while you were a prisoner of war?
A. In the camp of Rakov in the district of the Town of Proskurov where I was interned for the major time, the convoying of the labor commandos was carried out by units which were called SS.
Q. Was that a stationery camp?
A. Yes, Camp 105 was a stationery camp.
Q. But SS units were not used to guard you until you got to that stationery camp?
A. I cannot, say anything definite on that subject as I did not know the distinctive insignia of the German Army.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, do you want to ask anything in reexamination?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: I have no further questions to ask.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: May I continue? Hitlerites in the prisoner of war camps, documents which I would like to submit to the Tribunal upon request of our British colleagues. The Soviet Prosecution does this all the more readily in that it considers this documentation of the British Prosecution of very great importance in ascertaining the criminal character of the treatment inflicted by the Germans on prisoners of war, contrary to the usual treatment afforded by all civilized nations of the world.
documents of the British delegation, regarding the cruel murder of fifty prisoners of war, officers of the Royal Air Force, who were captured while trying to escape from the prisoner of war camp, Stalag III, Luft in Sagan during the night of the 24th to 25th of March, 1944. These documents are an official report of the Hitlerite crimes, certified by Brigadier General Chapcott, representative of the British Military Forces and the minutes in question, which were taken in Sagan upon the order of the Senior British Officer in Prisoner of war Camp III and submitted to the Protecting Power. We find also the statements of the following prisoners: Wing Commander Day, Flight Lieutenant Tonder, Flight Lieutenant Dowse, Flight Lieutenant van Wymeersch, Flight Lieutenant Green, Flight Lieutenant Marshall, Flight Lieutenant Nelson, Flight Lieutenant Churchill, Lieutenant Neely, D.S.M. Hicks The evidence is corroborated by the testimony of the following Germans:
General Major Westhoff, Higher Government Counsellor Wielen and Colonel von Lindeiner. perished, handed over by the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Swiss Diplomatic Mission in Berlin and the report of the representative of the Protecting Power during his visit to Stalag Luft III on 5 June, 1944. lerites by quoting from the report of Brigadier General Chapcott. The first excerpt is on pace 163, second paragraph of the document book.
"On the night of the 24 or 25 of March, 1944, 76 Royal Air Force Office escaped from Stalag Luft III at Sagan, Silesia, where they had been confined as prisoners of war. Of these fifteen were recaptured and returned to the camp, three escaped altogether, eight were detained by the Gestapo after recapture. Of the fate of the remaining fifty officers the following information was given by the German authorities:--" cape. Actually this was a lie, as a very thorough investigation carried out by the British military authorities proved indubitably that the British officers were vilely murdered after having been recaptured by the German police.
Goering and Keitel. I will furnish proof of this I quote a report submitted by the British Prosecution.
This extract is on page 168 of the document book.
Dr. NELTE: The Tribunal will recall that the question of the hearing of the witness General Westhoff has already played a role heretofor. The Prosecution. I do not have the document here -- submitted a report regarding the interrogation of General Westhoff, that is to say, the High Court Refused to hear the reading of this report. General Westhoff, whether this is the same document as was reviously refused by the Court or whether this is a new document which I do not as yet know of. I should therefore like to draw your attention to the fact that General Westhoff is in the prison here in Nurnberg; in other words, could be called as a witness on these questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, you heard what Dr. Nelte said, As i understood it -- I am not sure I got the name right -- but he referred to General Westhoff's evidence, which had been tendered and which had been rejected because the Tribunal thought that if that evidence was to be given General Westhoff ought to be called. General Westhoff at all?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President. It is mentioned in a part of the official British report.
THE PRESIDENT: But it isn't General Westhoff's report, is it?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I am here submitting an official report on this crime. The text of the British report mentions Major General Westhoff, but it has nothing to do with the questioning of Major General Westhoff whose evidence will be given later.
MR. G.D. ROBERTS: My Lord, perhaps I might speak on this matter-because I am partly responsible for that report--with the kind indulgence of my learned friend, my Russian colleague. government report under Article 21 of the Charter. The original is properly so certified. My Lord, it is quite true that General Westhoff's name is mentioned in the report, but it is quite a different document than the document which my French colleagues tendered and which the Tribunal rejected in evidence.
It is an official government report.
THE PRESIDENT: Why do you say that it is an official government report so as to come within Article 21 of the Charter?
MR. ROBERTS: Because the original has been handed in and it has been certified by Brigadier General Chapcott of the Military Department of the Judge Advocate General's Office. I think you have the original.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have the original.
MR. Roberts, to whom was this report made?
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, it was made in connection with the collection of evidence for this Tribunal. As my Lordship sees, it is headed "German War Crimes. Report on the Responsibility for the Killing of 50 RAF Officers" and then it states the sources on which the material has been based. Your Lordship will see on the last page of the report the appendix; "Material upon which the foregoing Report is based:
"1. Proceedings of Court of Inquiry held at Sagan.....
"2. Statements of the following Allied witnesses.....
"3. Statements from the following Germans.....
"4. Photostat copy of the official list of dead transmitted by the German Foreign Office to the Swiss Legation in Berlin .....
"5. Report of the Representative of the Protecting Power on his visit to Stalag Luft III on 5 June 1944."
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): Mr. Roberts, was this made for the Tribunal or for the War Crimes Commission?
MR. ROBERTS: It was made for this trial.
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): Made for this trial?
MR. ROBERTS: For this trial.
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): By a general in the army?
MR. ROBERTS: Yes, my Lord.
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): And he reported to whom?
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, it was then submitted to the British delegation for this trial.
THE TRIBUNAL.(Judge Biddle): You mean the Prosecution?
MR. ROBERTS: Yes, my Lord.
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): The report is the report of a British general made to the British Prosecution:
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I wouldn't quite with respect accept the phrase "report of a British general". I would say "a report of a Government department." It is signed and certified, by a British general.
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I submit most respectfully that my Lords may read in Article 21: "The Tribunal shall take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United Nations." a report made by a department of the Army in London, a government department, for the purpose of this trial.
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): Then any evidence that was collected and sent in by the Government will be official evidence.
MR. ROBERTS: I think that is so under article 21, that is, as I read it and as I respectfully submit to your Lordship.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to add anything, Dr. Nelte:
DR. NELTE: Yes, I should like to make a few further remarks.
In other words, a report was drawn up on the grounds of witnesses' testimony, and mentions the name of General Westhoff. I do not challenge the fact that this document has official character, and it is admissible as evidence under the terms of the Charter and consequently must be so admitted, but it seems to me that it is a question of something else here, namely a question of more adequate proof. or rejected because his testimony is to be found in an official report, then the process of proof would not meet the wishes of the Court, namely that the best method be used which can be discovered. The witness is at your disposal, but the report does not contain literally what he would testily before the Court, but simply conclusions drawn in the report which are subject to doubt, but which need not be doubted. It is simply a matter of the Defense Counsel being able, in their turn, to hear a witness, to interrogate him, if it is so easily possible as it is in this case.
THE PRESIDENT: But, Dr. Nelte, supposing that one of the witnesses who had been examined by one of the committees set up by the Government had made a report not to the Government at all, but an affidavit or something of that sort, and that had been offered to the Court and the witness had been available, the Court might very possible have refused to entertain that affidavit or report. But if that report was the foundation for a government report or for a government official document, then, by Article 21, the Tribunal is directed to entertain such a report.
Therefore, the fact that the Tribunal has already said that they wouldn't have some private affidavit or report of General Westhoff unless General Westhoff were called, isn't relevant at all. It is a question of whether they ought to entertain a report which you admit comes within Article 21.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I do not doubt that your Lordship is correct. I should like only to bring up the question whether, when there are two different sources of evidence, namely, on the one hand the report, and on the other the possibility of calling the witness in person, it would not be preferable to take the testimony of the witness into consideration as well, not in order to correct the official report, but in order to clarify what the witness really said, because in the report we do not in actuality apprehend what he really said. Keitel, who allegedly issued an order, namely the order to shoot the flight officers. One should, I believe, if a witness is present who could clarify this question, call this witness instead of relying on an official report which already contains an evaluation.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, in the first place this report doesn't proceed only or even substantially upon the evidence of General Westhoff, but a number of other origins of the report, and the second thing is that the whole object of Article 21 was to make government reports admissible and not to necessitate the calling of the witnesses upon whose evidence they proceeded.
DR. NELTE: Other witnesses are mentioned in the report, but those witnesses said nothing, as far as I know, about the question of whether Keitel actually issued an order for these executions. The only witness of all those mentioned who says anything on this matter is General Westhoff.
THE PRESIDENT: Had you wished to say anything further in argument upon the admissiblity of the document?
DR. NELTE: No.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: I believe, Mr. President, that the part of the document which concerns Major General Westhoff includes only one point, and that is Point 7 of the document. The document speaks of other phases of commission of this crime. Besides, this is an official report which is presented according to Article 21 of the Charter.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to say anything further, Dr. Nelte?
DR. NELTE: No, thank you. I simply asked the Court to decide. It is possible that I shall have to call General Westhoff as a witness to testify that this report is false in the conclusions that it draws, and that what it says does not correspond to previous testimony.
DR. KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for the Reich Cabinet): I should like to make a few legal remarks regarding Article 21 of the Charter. of direct evidence. Only when it is impossible to make use of direct evidence is part of the trial, in a way, transferred outside the courtroom. In most criminal trials in the various countries, we have a provision similar to that in Article 21 that previous decisions of the court do not have to be reiterated, at further trials, but that these decisions are binding.
In this trial, the Charter extends the provision to cases such as this, which because of their extent cannot be further discussed. Consequently, it is clear from Article 21 that provision has been made that official reports, government reports, are valid as evidence. Every lawyer knows that this provision is a legal blemish, in a way, because through it certain rights are lost to the defendants. On the other hand, one cannot take the line of argument that there are complicated situations which, because of their length cannot be discussed in a temporally limited trial. ty of accepting such reports as evidence, but this provision is no binding obligation on the Court so far as I can see in the German text that I have before me. The provision provides that the Court is to take such reports in evidence, but it is not said that the Court must do so. It is left to the discretion of the Tribunal whether the nature of the report makes it advisable to accept such a report in evidence. clearly to be seen that the Tribunal should make use of its discretion and should reject this document, and the Defense have taken the point of view that this piece of evidence could be settled by a witness. The hearing of the witness would provide the Defense Counsel with the right of cross examination. Since, for practical reasons, the witness will not be called, the transference of his evidence into a government report subsequently deprives him of the right of cross examination, in contradiction to the article of the Charter which permits the Defense the right of cross examination.
DR STAHMER (Counsel for the defendant G oering): It was not until today that the accusation was made that Goering knew of and ordered the execution of these fliers. I took no regard of this fact in the preparation of my case because I didn't even know of it, and I should like to request, therefore, the right to call further witnesses in the discussion of this question.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: May I add a word, Mr President?
THE PRESIDENT: On the question of admissibility?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: I consider that it is difficult to understand from a legal point of view the objections of the Defense Counsel for they introduce a qualitative distinction into this argument, considering that there are large crimes and small crimes, and Article 21 of the Charter concerns large crimes and therefore cannot apply to small crimes, I consider that from a legal point of view this argumentation is rather disputable and Article 21 can apply to any crime of the Hitlerites without respect to whether the scale is large or small.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn (A recess was taken.)
THE PRESIDENT: Mr Roberts, the Tribunal would like to know where these appendices which are referred to in paragraph 9 of the report are.
MR. ROBERTS: I think they are with the Tribunal now, in charge of the Clerk of the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Have they all been included? You can undertake, I suppose, to produce them all if they are not all of thorn there?
MR ROBERTS: Most certainly. I understood that all the material is not necessary, but I understood the whole of the material to be there, all in the original, of course.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, the Tribunal decides that the document will be admitted, and the Tribunal will summon, if he is available--and we think he is--General Westhoff, and that will be, in effect, granting the defendants' application to call General Westhoff, and also to call the officer mentioned in paragraph 3(b) of the appendix, whose surname I believe to be Wieland. I don't know whether you know where he is.
MR. ROBERTS: I will make inquiries and I will undertake to the Tribunal that we will do everything in our power to get the witnesses that are required for the defense, namely, General Westhoff, who is in Nurnberg, I understands-
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. ROBERTS:--and General Wieland. I am not certain where he is, but I will find out.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR KRAUS: Mr President, you have made a remark during the session with which the defendants' counsel are very much concerned.
As we understood it, it has been said that private affidavits would not be accepted by the Tribunal. This question of affidavits, since we have to present our proof, is very urgent. That is why I went to clarify that question.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think I said that affidavits could not be admitted. What I said was, it night be that affidavits would not be admitted if the witness was available to give direct evidence. That is the rule which we we have enforced throughout the trial.
DR KRAUS: Yes, sir. If I understand it correctly, in principle we may submit affidavits, whether certified by notary public or by a lawyer or whether they only bear the signature of the person who makes the statement a simple letter which has been written with the statement "I declare under oath". The second type is where the signature has been certified by a lawyer; and the third type is the one on which a certificate has been made by a notary public. we are preparing to present them and we hope we will be permitte to present these documents, in order to avoid the calling of witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that in all probability the matter will be considered when you present the applications for giving evidence by affidavit. We have today in dealing with the first four defendants allowed, in a variety of instances, that interrogatories should be administered to various witnesses, where it appeared appropriate that that should be done, in order to save time. No doubt the same rule will apply when you come to submit your applications,
DR. KRAUS: Yes, sir. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, would it be more convenient for you to go on with your presentation now on this document which we have admitted, or do you rash to present a film?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Mr President, I would like to finish the presentation of this proof and to read this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Very, well, but the Tribunal, I think desire that these two witnesses, Colonel Westhoff and Wieland, whatever his rank may be, should be produced for examination as soon as possible afterwards. I don't mean this afternoon, because that wouldn't be possible, but, if possible, tomorrow.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: If you will allow me, I will beg the representative "_ of the British delegation to answer this question.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Roberts, Colonel Smirnov was saying he would ask you to answer, because I was saying the Tribunal would like to have the witnesses called as soon as possible after the report was read.
MR. ROBERTS: Westhoff we know about. If your Lordship will give me a few minutes I will try to find out where Wieland can be located.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR ROBERTS: But I shall have to leave the court, then, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute.
Colonel Smirnov, wouldn't it be equally convenient to go on with the film now in order that the report, when it is presented, can be presented as close as possible to the evidence of the witnesses? Otherwise, suppose Mr. Roberts is unable to locate Wieland this afternoon. It might be that if you read the report now there might be a week possibly or even more between the reading of the report and the evidence of the witness. Is it possible to go on with the film now?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: All right, Mr. President.
We cannot call this a film in the full sense of this word. It is far more serious a photograph, which was taken by the Germans themselves and which has been recorded on a reel. It is therefore not a film but a photographic document. This reel is submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit YU 105. Government presented photographs on all the counts of the Indictment. We have excluded those which concerned other counts and included only those which concerned crimes against humanity. Therefore only a part of the document will be presented to the Tribunal. May I show these photographs?
(The photographic document referred to was shown on the screen).
COLONEL SMIRNOV: May I continue, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: In order to allow the Prosecution to ascertain the whereabouts of the two witnesses, I will pass on to the next part of my statement. Do you allow me to do so, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: I pass on to the persecution of the Jews. The extreme anti-Semitism of the Hitlerite criminals, which acquired the logical aspects, is well known. I will not quote the so-called works of the principal war criminals, -- of Hitler, or Goering or Streicher -- which proved this fact. In the countries of Eastern Europe, all the antiSemitism of the Hitlerites was put into effect in one way -- physical extermination of innocent people. of the reports of a special organization of German Fascism, the so-called Operational Group A, which was submitted as USA Exhibit L-180. Our American colleagues submitted the report which covered the period to 15 October 1941. The Soviet prosecution submits a report which is a continuation of the first, from 16 October 1941 to 31 January 1942. I submit to the Tribunal a photostatic copy of this report, as USSR Exhibit 57, and I beg the Tribunal to allow me to read a few short excerpts from the third chapter of this report, which is entitled, "Jews". I wish to call the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the data included in this report refer only to one organization; that is to say, to the Einsatzgruppen, or Operational Group A. I quote from page 170 of the document book:
"The systematic task of cleansing the East according to fundamental orders to liquidate to the full the Jews. This objective has been realized in its main points. If we include Byelorussia, 239,052 Jews have been executed. The Jews remaining in the Baltic provinces are being mobilized for work and being sent to the Ghettos." entitled "Estonia."
"The execution of Jews, as far as the latter were not necessary for work, were gradually carried out by units of the Shutzpolizei and the SD. At the present moment, there are no longer any Jews in Esthonia."
I quote another short excerpt from the chapter entitled "Latvia." I quote one line on page 2 of the Russian text, page 171 of the document book:
"When the German troops entered Latvia, there were still 70,000 Jews there." text, page 172 of the document book:
"By October 1941 the special kommandos have executed exactly 30,000 Jews."
I again break off and continue with the following sentence:
"Frequently further executions were carried out. Thus, for instance, on the 9th of November 1941 in Bielsk, 11,034 Jews were executed. At the beginning of December 1941, as a result of an operation which was carried out in Riga following the order of the former chief of the SS and police, 27,800 persons were executed, and in the middle of December 1941 in Liban, 2,453 Jews were executed. At the present moment, in the Ghetto, besides the Jews from Germany, there are exactly: in Riga, 2500 persons; in Doinsk, 950, and in Libau, 300 persons."
THE PRESIDENT: Can you tell me where these figures come from? Are they an official report, or are they German figures.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: These are the data which were published by the Germans themselves. This document was found in the archives of the Gestapo by the troops of the Red Army. between 16 October 1941 and 31 January 1942. This is therefore not conclusive data, but only data concerning this period.
May I continue?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: I quote only one line from the chapter entitled "Lithuania", which is on page 173 of the document book, third paragraph:
"As the result of numerous single operations, altogether 136,421 persons were liquidated." chapter entitled "Belorussia." I quote the last sentence of the last paragraph on page 5 of the Russian text, page 154 of the document book.
"The problem to continue a complete liquidation of Jews in the territory of Belorussia after the arrival of the Germans met with certain difficulties. The fact is that here the Jews constituted a very high percentage of specialists who in this territory, as the result of absence of other reserves, are quite indispensable. For such operation Group A has taken over this territory only after the operations had set in, and this fact fact seriously helped the carrying out of the mass executions. Further difficulties are that the Jews were dispersed over the entire territory, particularly in consideration of the fact that there ware large distances of bad roads, the absence of transportation, the lack of gas, as well as the small force of police engaged in the operation of carrying on of these executions, and it can only be fulfilled by a maximum of effort."
Never the less, all 41,000 Jews have been shot. This number does not include those that had been shot by previous commanders. I again interrupt the court and read from page 175 of the document book. Not with standing the difficult situation, "The commander of police in Belorussia had been ordered to solve the Jewish problem as soon as possible; never the less this will demand about two months, and will depend on the weather conditions and the distribution of Jews remaining in the existing depots and ghettos of Belorussia drawing to its end."
were carried out, I submit to the Tribunal as USSR No. 119-A a certified photostatic copy of a German document. This is the conclusive report of the Commander of one of the companies of the 12th Police Regiment, which carried out mass actions in view of the extermination of the Jews in the town of Pinsk.