Thus, solution (a) would have involved the erection of a German state between Bohemia and Slovakia, and would have prevented effective inter-communications between the Czechs and the Slovaks. In this manner, the historic desire for unity of these two groups of peace-loving people and the continued existence of their Czechoslovakian State would have been frustrated. Solution (a), it may be noted, was rejected because the surviving Czechs, even though compressed into a "residual Bohemia" would have remained to plague the conspirators.
Solution (b), which involved the forcible deportation of all Czechs, was rejected, not because its terms were deemed too drastic but rather because a more speedy resolution of the problem was desired.
Solution (c), as shown in the exhibit, was regarded as the most desirable, and was adopted. This solution first provided for the assimilation of about one half of the Czechs. This meant 2 things: (a) enforced Germanization for those who were deemed racially qualified and (b) deportation to slave labor in Germany for others. "Increasing the Arbeitseinsatz of the Czechs in the Reich territory", as stated in the exhibits, plainly meant slave labor in Germany.
Solution (c) further provided for the elimination and deportation "by all sorts of methods" of the other half of the Czech population, particular the intellectuals and those who did not meet the racial standards of the conspirators. Intellectuals everywhere were an anathema to the Nazi conspirators, and the Czech intellectuals were no exception. Indeed, the Czech intellectuals, as the conspirators well know, had a conspicuous record of gallantry, self-sacrifice, and resistance to the Nazi ideology. They were, therefore, to be exterminated. As will be shown in other connections, that section of the top secret report which stated "elements which counteract the planned Germanization are to be handled roughly and should be eliminated" meant that intellectuals and other dissident elements were either to be thrown in concentration camps or immediately exterminated.
In short, the previsions of solution (c) were simply a practical application of the conspirators' philosophy as expressed in Himmler's speech, part of which we have quoted in L-70, already presented in evidence as U.S.A. Exhibit No. 308.
Himmler said that "Either we win over any good blood that we can use for ourselves ... or we destroy this blood."
I now turn briefly to the conspirators' program of spoliation and Germanization in the Western occupied countries. Evidence which will be presented at a later stage of this proceeding will show how the conspirators sought to Germanize the Western occupied countries; how they stripped the conquered countries in the West of food and raw materials, leaving to them scarecely enough to maintain a bare existence; how they compelled local industry and agriculture to satisfy the insatiable wants of the German civilian population and the Wehrmacht; and finally how the spoliation in the Western occupied countries was aided and abetted by (a) excessive occupation charges (b) compulsory and fraudulent clearing arrangements, and (c) confiscation of their gold and foreign exchange. The evidence concerning these matters will be presented in great detail by the Prosecutor for the Republic of France and that evidence is so overwhelming that the inference is inescapable that the conspirators' acts were committed according to plan. evidence concerning the execution of the conspirators' plans in the West will be presented to this Tribunal. Accordingly, by way of illustration, and for the purpose of showing in this presentation that the conspirators' plans embraced the occupied Western countries as well as the East, we offer in evidence a single exhibit on this aspect of the case, R-114, which is U.S.A. Exhibit No. 314. This document was obtained from the U.S. Counter Intelligence Branch. This exhibit consists of a memorandum dated 7 August 1942 and a memorandum dated 29 August 1942, from Himmler's personal files. The former memorandum deals with a conference of SS officers, and bears the title "General Directions for the treatment of deported Alsatians". The latter memorandum is marked secret and is entitled "Shifting of Alsatians into Germany proper". The memoranda comprising this exhibit show that plans were made and partially executed to remove all elements from Alsace which were hostile to the conspirators, and to Germanize the province. I quote from page 1, lines 21 to 31 of the English text entitled "General directions for the treatment of deported Alsatians". These extracts are contained in the German text at page 1, the last 8 lines, and page 2, lines 1 to 5. I now quote:
"The first expulsion action was carried out in Alsace in the period from July to December 1940; in the course of it, 105,000 persons were either expelled or prevented from returning.
They Frenchmen and Francophiles.
The Patois-speaking population necessity of new deportations (zweiten Aussiedlungsaktien) which are to be prepared as soon as possible". Mr. Justice Jackson would like to make some remarks.
JUSTICE JACKSON: May it please the Tribunal, I wish to bring to the attention of the Tribunal and of the defense counsel some matters concerning the case as it will take its course next week in the belief that it will result in expediting our procedure if over the weekend our program can be considered.
Mr. Harris' presentation will take a short time longer on Monday, and when it has concluded the presentation by the United States, it will have reached that part of the indictment which seeks a declaratory judgment of this Tribunal that six of the organizations named therein are criminal organizations. They effect such a finding only that they may constitute such a basis for prosecution against individual members in other courts than this, proceedings in which every defense will be open to an accused individual, except that he may not deny the findings made by this Tribunal as to the character of the organization of which he was a member. which will save the time of the Tribunal and advance the prosecution as rapidly as possible so that United States personnel can be released.
We also desire defendants' counsel to have before them as much as possible of our evidence against organizations before the Christmas recess so that they may use that recess time to examine it and to prepare their defenses and that we may be spared any further applications for delay for that purpose. on this branch of the case be reserved for consideration after the evidence is before the Tribunal. The real question we submit is not whether to admit the evidence. The real question is its value and its legal consequences under the provisions of this Charter. All of the evidence which we will tender will be tendered in the belief that it cannot be denied to have some probative value and, although it is relevant to the charges made in the indictment. And those are the grounds upon which the Charter authorizes a rejection of evidence. advantage of time saving to the Tribunal and to ourselves to get as much of the case as possible in the hands of the Defendant before the Christmas recess and to argue the ultimate issues only when they can be intelligibly argued and understood on the basis of a real record instead of on assumptions and hypothetical statements of fact.
to stipulate as follows: by the United States as against these organizations may be deemed to be reserved and fully available to defense counsel at any time before the close of the United States case with the same effect as if the objection had been made when the evidence was offered. All evidence on this subject shall remain subject to a continuing power of the Tribunal on motion of any counsel or on its own motion, to strike unprejudiced by the absence of objection. Every question as to the effect of the evidence shall be considered open and unprejudiced by the fact that it has been received without objection. which may be raised concerning this branch of the case. What this evidence proves; what organizations it is sufficient to condemn, and how the Charter applies to it are question capable of debate, and which we are quite ready to argue when it can be done in orderly and intelligible fashion. We had expected to do it in final summation, but we will do it at any time suggested by the Tribunal, after there is a record on which to found the argument, and we are willing to do it either before or after the defendants take up the case. But we do suggest that if it is done step by step, as the evidence is produced, and on questions of admissibility it will be disorderly an time-consuming. Pecemeal argument will consume time by requiring counsel on both sides to recite evidence that is either in the case or to speculate as to evidence that is not yet in, to resort to hypothetical cases, and to do it over and over again to each separate objection. It will also be disorderly because of our plan of presentation. the proposal made by President Roosevelt to the Yalta Conference, agreement upon which was the basis for this proceeding. The United States would not have participated in this kind of determination of question of guilt but for this or some equivalent plan of reaching thousands of others, who, if less conspicuous, are just as guilty of these crimes as the men in the dock.
Because of participation in the framing of the Charter and knowledge of the problem it was designed to reach I shall expect to reach the legal issues involved in these questions. specialized in the search for and the arrangement of evidence on a particular and limited charge od indictment. Piecemeal argument, therefore plete, poorly organized, and of little help to the Tribunal.
The issues tect everybody's rights and enable the defense as well as ourselves to THE PRESIDENT:
Justice Jackson, have you yet communicated that to the defendants' counsel in writing or not?
JUSTICE JACKSON: I have not communicated it, unless it has been THE PRESIDENT:
I think, perhaps, it might be convenient that you JUSTICE JACKSON:
I have prepared to do that and to supply sufficien THE PRESIDENT:
Yes.
DR. GEORG BOHM: I represent the members of the S.A. who are before the Tribunal.
I only understood the statements made by Justice Jackson partially.
As counsel I have no one who can advise me, and I cannot, German so that I can reply to the statements and speeches.
I do not this proceeding.
And I also have the responsibility, and the rest of my colleagues have the same responsibility, toward the organizations that are under discussion and, as a matter of principle, I ask that everything which is submitted in this proceeding, to, please, have it submitted in the German language because I'm not in a position from day to day to have these volumes of documents translated into German.
If it is possible to have these documents submitted to me in the original German. And this condition does not only apply to me but to a number of other colleagues. It makes it awful difficult for me and my colleagues to even follow the proceedings. been presented so far, I could not take very much against the organization which are accused, but the evidence against these organizations which is to be presented, as indicated today, I would like to ask urgently, if we are to remain as counsel for these organizations, to, please, order the proceedings in such a way so that even for technical reasons, we will be in a position to carry on the defense ina responsible manner.
THE PRESIDENT: As you know or have been told, only those parts of those documents which are read before the Tribunal are treated as being in evidence and, therefore, you hear through your earphones everything that is in evidence read to you in German. You know, also, that there are two copies of the documents in your information center which are in German. So much for that. That has been the procedure up to now. posal which Mr. Justice Jackson has just made is perfectly simply, as I understand it, and it is this: not be argued before the evidence is put in; that the United States counsel should put in their evidence first, and that they hope to put the majority of it in evidence before the Christmas recess, but that the German counsel, defendants' counsel, shall be at liberty at any time, up to the time the United States case is finished, to make objection to any part of the evidence on these criminal organizations.
Is that not clear?
DR. GEORG BOHM: Yes, I understand.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you any objection to that procedure?
DR. GEORG BOHM: Yes. I understand the proceedings as just now suggested but I'm of the opinion that it is hardly applicable that the two copies which are in the room downstairs, referring to these copies, I have not had the opportunity to have them presented to me. It may be that two copies are not sufficient for the purposes of twenty-five lawyers, and we are not possible to make use of them when these conies come in at 10:30 in the morning, whereas the session has already started at 10:00 in the morning, and it would not suffice, either, if these two copies for twenty-five people would be submitted only the day before because it is not possible in that short period of time for all of us, twenty-five of us, to be satisfied, and we, therefore, ask just how the prosecution can facilitate this matter.
I don't know. But we ask to please order the proceedings in such a way so that we can have it in time and, I emphasize, in the German language to have the material and to know these things that the prosecution demands of us so that we can be in a position to have our work serve the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: What you have just stated is a general objection to the procedure which has been adopted up to now and has nothing to do with the procedure which has been suggested by Mr. Justice Jackson with reference to these criminal organizations. All his suggestion was that, so far as argument on the law of the criminal issue or the criminal nature of these organizations should be postponed until the evidence was put in and that the right of counsel for the defense should be to make objection at any stage or, rather, to defer their objections until the evidence had been put in, and it was hoped that the evidence would be completed or nearly completed by the Christmas recess. What you say about the general procedure may be considered by the Tribunal. question of the procedure suggested by Mr. Justice Jackson, have you any objection to that?
DR. GEORG BOHM: I will object only if through this proceeding-and I would like to make certain reservations--if the proceeding is handicapped in any way because we represent the interests of many, many people before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: We are aware of that fact, but that doesn't seem to be material to the question whether the legal argument should be deferred until after the evidence is presented. The fact that you have millions of people to represent has nothing to do with the question whether the legal argument shall take place before or in the middle of or at the end of the presentation of the evidence.
What I'm asking you is: Have you any objection to the legal argument taking place at the end of the presentation of the evidence?
DR. GEORG BOHM: I have no objection against these suggestions in so far as my defense is not influenced in any way through that.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will new adjourn.
(Whereupon at 1705 hours the hearing of the Tribunal adjourned to reconvene at 1000 hours on 17 December 1945.)
Military Tribunal, in the matter of: The
THE PRESIDENT: I have four announcements to make on behalf of the Tribunal. I will read those announcements new and they will be posted upon the board in the Defendants' Counsel's Information Center in German as soon as possible.
The first announcement is this: The attention of the Tribunal has been drawn to publications in the press of what appear to have been interviews with some of the defendants in this case, given through the agency of their counsel. The Tribunal considers it necessary to state with the greatest emphasis that this is a procedure which cannot and will not be countenanced. Therefore, counsel are warned that they should observe the highest professional standards in such matters and should not use the opportunity afforded, to them of conferring freely with their clients to act in any way as intermediaries between the defendants and the press, and they must exercise the greatest professional discretion in making any statement on their own behalf. public interest is world-wide, it is in the highest degree important that all those who take part in the trial in any capacity whatever should be aware of their responsibility to see that nothing is done to detract from the proper conduct of the proceedings. giving publicity to the proceedings of the Tribunal, and the Tribunal feels that it may properly ask for the cooperation of all concerned to avoid anything which might conflict with the impartial administration of justice.
The second announcement that I have to make is this: The Tribunal understands that the counsel appointed under Article 9 of the Charter are in doubt whether they have been appointed to represent the groups and organizations charged in the indictment as criminal, or to represent individual applicants who have applied to be heard under the said article.
tions charged, and not the applicants. As the Tribunal has already directed, counsel will be entitled to call as witnesses representative applicants and may also call other persons whose attendance may be ordered by the Tribunal. Application to call any witness must be made in the ordinary way. The evidence of such witnesses and the arguments of counsel must be confined to the question of the criminal nature of the group or organization. Counsel will not be entitled to call evidence or to discuss any question as to the individual responsibility of particular applicants, except in so far as this may bear upon the criminal character of the organizations. Counsel will be permitted, as far as possible, to communicate with applicants in order to decide what witnesses they wish to apply to call.
The third announcement is this: The Chief Prosecutor for the United States has requested the Tribunal to make a change in its formal order which provided that only such portions of documents which are read in the court would be admitted as evidence. In order to meet the needs, so far as possible, of the members of the Tribunal, of the Prosecution, and of Counsel for the Defendants, to have before them all of the evidence in the case, the Tribunal, having carefully considered the request, makes the following order All documents may be filed in Court.
The Tribunal shall only admit in evidence, however:
1. Documents or portions of documents which are read in Court;
2. Documents or portions of documents which are cited in Court, on the condition that they have been translated into the respective languages of the members of the Tribunal for their use; and that sufficient numbers in German are filed in the Information Center for the use of Defense Counsel. judicial notice in accordance with Article 21 of the Charter, and the prosecution and the defendants will be at liberty to read those documents or to refer them without reading them. sufficient copies thereof are, at the same time, filed for Defense Counsel in the Information Center. As far as possible, these should be furnished in advance of their introduction in Court. In order to permit the Interpretation and Translation Division to make translations in time, five days before they are to be offered in evidence.
This is the fourth announcement: The Tribunal has passed upon a number of applications for witnesses. Some of these have been granted, subject to their evidence being relevant. Some have been declined, and in some cases orders have been made that the witness be alerted; that is to say, that if he can be located, he be advised to hold himself in readiness to come here as a witness if the application is granted. nesses who are material and relevant to their defense. To prevent the unnecessary prolonging of the trial, however, it is clear that the witnesses whose testimony is irrelevant or merely cumulative should not be summoned. At the conclusion of the Prosecution's testimony, the Tribunal shall hear from Defendant's Counsel as to which of the witnesses granted or alerted they think necessary to bring here to testify. At that time, the Tribunal may hear from them further as to any witnesses that have been declined, if, in view of the case, it then appears to the Tribunal that the testimony of such witnesses is material and not cumulative. any relevant matter, and may interrogate him as a witness for that purpose. If the other defendant takes the stand in his own behalf, the right shall be exercised at the conclusion of his testimony.
Examination of witnesses called by other defendants: The same person has been asked as a witness by a number of defendants in some cases. It is only necessary that such witness be called to the stand once. He may then be interrogated by counsel for any defendant as to any material matter.
CAPTAIN HARRIS: May it please the Tribunal, we are resuming the presentation of evidence of the conspirators' plans for Germanization and spoliation. conspirators' plans for the spoilation and Germanization of the Soviet Union.
As Mr. Alderman has shown, the invasion of the Soviet Union was the culmination of plans meticulously laid by the conspirators. We wish now to introduce evidence upon the conspirators' plans for the spoilation and Germanization of the Soviet Union after their anticipated conquest. execution of these plans meant in terms of human suffering and misery. We submit that the few exhibits which we propose to offer at this time will show the following:
1. The conspirators planned to remove to Germany all foodstuffs and raw materials from the South and South-East of the Soviet Union, over and above the needs of the Nazi invading forces and the absolute minimum necessary to supply the bare needs of the people in those particular regions.
area of the Soviet Union, which the conspirators called the "Forest Zone". The latter zone embraced some of the leading industrial areas of the Soviet Union, including Moscow and Leningrad.
2. They deliberately and systematically planned to starve millions of Russians. Starvation wasto be accomplished by the following means:
a. As indicated under Point 1, products from the south and forcibly diverted to Germany.
Moreover, all livestock in b. They established the following order of priority in which who were not essential to the production of farm products for the German war machine, were to be systematically starved.
Point 3. They planned the permanent destruction of all industry in the northern area of the Soviet Union in order that the remnants of the Russian population would be completely dependent upon Germany for their consumer goods.
4. They planned to incorporate a part of Galicia and all of the Baltic countries into Germany and to convert the Crimea and an area north of the Crimea, the Volga territory, and the district around Baku into German colonies.
I first offer in evidence Document No. EC-472, U.S.A. Exhibit No. 315. This document is offered for the particular purpose of showing the status and functions of the Economic Staff East, Group LA. The Exhibit which we shall next offer in evidence was prepared by this organization. Document No. EC-472 is a directive issued by Defendant Goering's office for "The Operation of the Economy in the Newly-occupied Eastern Territories." It is the second edition and is dated Berlin, July 1941. The first edition was obviously published some time before July 1941. The document was found among the captured OKW files in Sackenheim. Economic Executive Staff Easter, which was directly responsible to him, and under it created the Economic Staff East. The Economic Staff East in turn was sub-divided into four groups: the Chief of the Economic Staff, Group LA, Group and Group M. I now quote from page 2, lines 7-9 of the English text. In the german text it is at page 7, lines 7-9.
I quote: "Group LA. Functions of Nutrition and Agriculture, concerned."
Exhibit No. 316. This is a report dated 23 May 1941, which was before the invasion of the Soviet Union. It was found among the captured files of the OKW. It is entitled, "Economic Policy Directives for Economic Organization, East, Agricultural Group." It was prepared by the Economic Staff East, Group LA, the Agricultural Group, which, as shown by the exhibit introduced a few months ago, was an important part of the organization which Defendant Goering established to formulate plans for the economic administration of Russia.
underscoring in the original. production of agricultural products in the Soviet Union. It states that the grain surplus of Russia is determined by the level of domestic consumption and that this fact affords the basis upon which the planners must predicate their actions and economic policy. I now quote from the 6th and 7th paragraphs of page 2 of the English text. The German text is the last 3 lines of page 3, and the first 5 lines of page 4.
I quote: "The surplus territories are situated in the black soil district (that is is the south and south-east) and in the Caucasus.
The deficit areas are principally located our disposal.
The consequences will be cessation of industrial centers of Moscow and St. Petersburg."
of page 3, of the English text. The German text, begins in the middle of line 6 of page 5 and continues through to line 29 of page 6.
I quote: "This, the cessation of supplies, means:
1. All industry in the deficit area, particularly the 2. The Trans-Caucasian oil district will have to be excepted, although it is a deficit area.
This source of 3. No further exceptions with a view to preserving one or the other industrial region or industrial enterprise must be permitted.
4. Industry can only be preserved insofar as it is located in the surplus region. This applies, apart from the abovementioned oil field regions in the Caucasus, particularly to the heavy industries in the Donetz district (Ukraine). Only the future will show to what eytent it will prove possible to maintain in full these industries, and in particular the Ukrainian manufacturing industries, after the withdrawal of the food surplus by Germany. The following consequences result from this situation, which has received the approval of the highest authorities, since it is in accord with the political tendencies, preservation of the "small" Russians, preservation of the Caucasus, of the Baltic provinces, of White Russia to the prejudice of the Great Russians.
I. For the forest belt a) Production in the forest belt (the food-deficit area) will become 'naturalized', similar to the events during the World War and the Communistic tendencies of the war, etc., viz: agriculture in that territory will begin to become a mere 'home production'. The result will be that the planting of products destined for the market such as, in particular, flax and hemp, will be discontinued, and the area used therefor will be taken over for products for the producer (grain, potatoes, etc.) Makeover, discontinuance of fodder for the area will lead to be collapse of the dairy production and of pig producing in that territory. b) Germany is not Interested in the maintenance of the productive power of these territories, except for supplying the troops stationed there. The population, as in the old days, will utilize arable lan for growing its own food. It is useless to expect grain or other surpluses to be produced. Only after many years can these extensive regions be intensified to an extent that they might produce genuine surpluses. The population of these areas, in particular the urba population, will have to face most serious distress from famine. It will be necessary to divert the population into the Siberian spaces. Since rail transport is out of the question, this too, will be an extremely difficult problem. c) In this situation, Germany will only draw substantial advantages by quick, non-recurrent seizure, i.e., it will be vitally necessary to make the entire flax harvest available for German needs, not only the fibers but also the oleaginous seed. It will also be necessary to utilize for German purposes the livestock which has no fodder base of its own, i.e. it will be necessary to seize livestock holdings immediately, Germany.