Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-18/tgmwc-18-169.07
Last-Modified: 2000/09/11

  Question. Did this practice correspond to issued orders?

  Answer. Yes.
  
  Question. Did it become known to the United States Naval
  authorities that Japanese merchantmen were under orders
  to report any sighted United States submarines to the
  Japanese armed forces via radio? If yes, when did it
  become known?
  
  Answer. During the course of the war, it became known to
  the United States Naval authorities that Japanese
  merchantmen in fact reported by radio to Japanese armed
  forces any information regarding sighting of United
  States submarines.
  
  Question. Did the United States submarines thereupon
  receive the order to attack Japanese merchantmen without
  warning; if this order did not exist already before? If
  so, when?
  
  Answer. The order existed from 7th December, 1941.
  
  Question. Did it become known to the United States Naval
  authorities that the Japanese merchantmen were under
  orders to attack any United States submarine in any way
  suitable according to the situation; for instance, by
  ramming, gunfire, or by depth charge; if so, when did it
  become known?
  
  Answer. Japanese merchantmen were usually armed and
  always attacked by any available means when feasible.
  
  Question. Were, by order or on general principles, the
  United States submarines prohibited from carrying out
  rescue measures toward passengers and crews of ships sunk
  without warning in those cases where by doing so the
  safety of their own boat was endangered?
  
  Answer. On general principles, the United States
  submarines did not rescue enemy survivors if undue
  additional hazard to the submarine resulted or the
  submarine would thereby be prevented from accomplishing
  its further mission. United States submarines were
  limited in rescue measures by small passenger carrying
  facilities, and by the known desperate and suicidal
  character of the enemy. Therefore, it was unsafe to pick
  up many survivors. Frequently survivors were given rubber
  boats and/or provisions. Almost invariably survivors did
  not come aboard the submarine voluntarily and it was
  necessary to take them prisoner by force.
  
  Question. If such an order or principle did not exist,
  did the United States submarine actually carry out rescue
  measures in the above-mentioned cases?
  
  Answer. In numerous cases enemy survivors were rescued by
  United States submarines.
  
  Question. In answering the above question, does the
  expression 'merchantmen' mean any other kind of ships
  than those which were not warships?
  
  Answer. By 'merchantmen' I mean all types of ships which
  were not combatant ships. Used in this sense, it includes
  fishing boats, etc.
  
  Question. Has any order of the United States Naval
  authorities mentioned in the above questionnaire,
  concerning the tactics of the United States submarines
  toward Japanese merchantmen, been based on the ground of
  reprisal?

                                                   [Page 28]

  Answer. The unrestricted submarine and air warfare
  ordered on 7th December, 1941, resulted from the
  recognition of Japanese tactics revealed on that date. No
  further orders to United States submarines concerning
  tactics toward Japanese merchantmen, throughout the war,
  were based on reprisal, although specific instances of
  Japanese submarines committing atrocities toward United
  States merchant marine survivors became known and would
  have justified such a course.
  
  Question. Has this order or have these orders of the
  Japanese Government been announced as reprisals?
  
  Answer. This question is not clear. Therefore I make no
  reply thereto.
  
  Question. On the basis of what Japanese tactics was
  reprisal considered justified?
  
  Answer. The unrestricted submarine and air warfare
  ordered by the Chief of Naval Operations on 7th December,
  1941, was justified by the Japanese attacks on that date
  on United States bases and on both armed and unarmed
  ships and nationals, without warning or declaration of
  war.
  
  The above record of testimony has been examined by me on
  this date and is in all respects accurate and true.
  
  Signed, Chester W. Nimitz, Fleet Admiral, United States
  Navy."

This document bears the number Donitz 100.

As my next document I submit an expert opinion given by the
former naval judge, Jaeckel, on the sentences given by naval
courts for the protection of the home population when
attacked by the marines. This document has been admitted by
the Tribunal and is available in translation and therefore I
do not need to read it.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you give us the number?

DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Donitz 49, Mr. President.

Then, Mr. President, some weeks back I made application to
admit extracts from the records of a War Crimes Court at
Oslo. These had been used by the prosecution on the occasion
of the cross-examination of Grand Admiral Donitz. At that
time they were not assigned a number. From these records I
selected some extracts which, in the case of torpedo boat
No. 345, the crew of which were shot because of the commando
order, are to prove that this was a boat which was acting on
a sabotage mission, and that the High Command of the Navy,
and therefore also Admiral Donitz, were not notified of the
treatment accorded to these prisoners, this question having
been in fact disposed of directly by means of discussions
between Gauleiter Terboven and the Fuehrer's Headquarters. I
ask that the High Tribunal admit this document as evidence,
since this document was used by the prosecution. It would
receive the number Donitz 107.

COLONEL PHILLIMORE: My Lord, I do not know if the Tribunal
has got before it the answer which the prosecution have
given to this application.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we have just looked at it now.

COLONEL PHILLIMORE: Broadly speaking, it comes to this, that
we are quite prepared to put in the whole proceedings but we
should object to extracts being put in; that is, amongst the
affidavits and the evidence of some of the witnesses,
material to support the points for which counsel for
defendant Donitz contends. There is, on the other hand, a
body of evidence the other way on all those points. That is
why, my Lord -

THE PRESIDENT: Would not it save translation if you put in
the passages in the document upon which you rely?

COLONEL PHILLIMORE: If that would be more convenient, my
Lord, we can do that.

THE PRESIDENT: I do not know how long the document is. It
may be very long indeed.

                                                   [Page 29]

COLONEL PHILLIMORE: The whole proceedings are very long. The
trial lasted for four days.

THE PRESIDENT: Then it would be appropriate that you should
pick out the parts on which you rely and Dr. Kranzbuehler
can put in -

COLONEL PHILLIMORE: My Lord, it is put in the answer that
the document which was proved in the defendant's case
against this defendant was an affidavit by the Judge
Advocate, who set out the effect of the evidence accepted by
the Court.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal follows that, but it thinks that
it is desirable that you, as well as the defence counsel,
should put in the passages upon which you rely.

DR. KRANZBUEHLER: May I submit this document, Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT: What is the number again, please?

DR. KRANZBUEHLER: No. 107, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: And it contains extracts from these
proceedings, does it?

DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Yes, extracts.

THE PRESIDENT: The prosecution will put in their extracts
and we will consider them both.

DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Mr. President, then I have a question
dealing with the documents of the case which we have just
dealt with, the case of Katyn.

The witness, Professor Markov, mentioned the expert opinion
given by the Italian expert, Professor Palmieri, which is in
the German White Book. I should also like to submit this
opinion as evidence, for the reasons that there is no
mention of insects being found among the corpses, but
rather, "larvae". To me the difference appears to be that
insects fly about during the summer whereas larvae conceal
themselves during the winter months. Mr. President, may I
submit this document?

COLONEL SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I should like to make just
one factual remark. In Professor Palmieri's report it was
indicated that the "larvae" were discovered in the throats
of the corpses. I do not know if ever "insects" were found.
That is why I do not think that the presentation of the
document by defence counsel should be permitted.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kranzbuehler, you are specifying a
particular document referred to in the White Book, is that
right?

DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Yes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: And you mean the whole of the document?

DR. KRANZBUEHLER: That document is about one page long, Mr.
President.

THE PRESIDENT: Then you may put it in, subject to its being
translated.

DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Very well, Mr. President.

COLONEL SMIRNOV: Mr. President, we are talking about one
document which is a report on the dissection of corpses
performed by Professor Palmieri. This is just an account of
an autopsy carried out by Professor Palmieri himself.

THE PRESIDENT: Is it referred to in the conclusions or not?

DR. KRANZBUEHLER: It is put in the general record to the
same extent as the record of Professor Markov. It is the
findings on the autopsy which Professor Palmieri performed.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Mr. President, I have another document in
the case of Katyn, which I received from Polish sources just
a few days ago. This is a document which was written in
English, and appeared in London in 1946. The

                                                   [Page 30]

title is, "Report On the Massacre of Polish Officers in the
Katyn Forest". In this document Polish sources are used, and
I should like to offer this document to the Tribunal as
evidence.

However, before I present certain lines of evidence, I would
like to ask that the High Tribunal examine this document,
for there may be doubts whether it can be used as evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kranzbuehler, this document is printed
for private circulation only. It has no printer's name on
it, and it is entirely anonymous.

DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Yes, Mr. President, those were my own
doubts. I submitted this document as I assumed that because
of the significance of this case, the Tribunal would
nevertheless want to take official notice of the contents.

THE PRESIDENT: No, the Tribunal thinks it would be improper
to look at a document of this nature.

GENERAL RUDENKO: Mr. President, I should just like to make
one remark, as in fact the Tribunal has already indicated
its decision. The statement of defence counsel that this
document was received from the Polish delegation astounds
me, to say the least. I should like to know from what Polish
delegation he received this document, because the Polish
delegation represented here could not possibly produce such
a Fascist propaganda document as this.

THE PRESIDENT: I think General Rudenko misunderstood what
Dr. Kranzbuehler said.

DR. SAUTER (counsel for the defendant Funk): Mr. President,
four interrogatories were granted to me on behalf of the
defendant Funk. When I presented my case, I could not yet
submit these affidavits because they had not been
translated. In the meantime, I have received these
translations, and they have been submitted to the Tribunal.
I ask to be permitted to present them briefly to the
Tribunal at this point.

One of them, in Document Book Walter Funk, Supplement No. 2
will be assigned Exhibit No. 16. This is the very
comprehensive interrogation of the witness Landfried who
held the position of State secretary in the ministry of the
defendant Funk. This witness - I do not believe I need to
read this record in detail - in answer to the first
question, deals with the economic policy of the defendant
Funk in the occupied countries. He describes it in exactly
the same way as it was described by Funk. In answer to
question 2, he deals similarly with the directions given by
the defendant Funk to the military commanders and to the
Reich commissioner of the occupied countries.

Under question 4, the witness deals with the question of the
plundering of the occupied territories. He confirms the fact
that the defendant Funk always opposed such plundering, that
he fought the black market, that he opposed devaluation of
the currency, that he tried to maintain currency in the
occupied territory at an even level.

In reply to question 5, the witness describes in detail how
the defendant Funk tried to prevent financial overburdening
of the occupied countries, specifically to lower the costs
of occupation as far as possible.

Then in the other questions, in part 2, namely in reply to
question 11, the witness discusses the activities of the
defendant Funk in the Ministry of Economics, in regard to
German preparations in the event of a war.

Then, in reply to question 12, the witness examines the
position of the General Plenipotentiary for Economy and he
concludes that in practice it merely stood on paper.
However, I do not wish to read these detailed statements and
take up too much of the time of the Tribunal, for in the
main these are only repetitions of statements that have
already been made.

In the last two questions, Nos. 14 and 15, the witness
Landfried, who as I have already said was for years the
defendants deputy, describes the defendant's attitude toward
the policy of terror, and his fundamental attitude in regard
to the

                                                   [Page 31]

use of foreign workers and similar matters. I ask that the
Tribunal take judicial notice of this very detailed
testimony and that these brief statements will suffice. The
next interrogatory comes from the witness Emil Puhl. This is
the same witness who was interrogated in this courtroom
about other questions, namely the question of gold teeth,
etc. This is the interrogatory and the answers of the
witness Emil Puhl, Document Book Funk, Supplement No. 3,
Exhibit 17.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, has this interrogatory been
granted?

DR. SAUTER: Yes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: He gave his evidence. We do not generally
allow interrogatories to witnesses who have given their
evidence.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the matter was like this: As far
back as December I had applied for this interrogatory and
repeatedly asked about it, but it did not arrive. And only
after two days of cross-examination, this witness Emil Puhl
was suddenly questioned by the prosecution on entirely
different matters, viz., the matter of gold deposits made by
the SS and of gold teeth. This interrogation at the
instigation of the prosecution did not refer to the
interrogatory, which I believe, was granted by you in
February.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, what I mean is this: Supposing
the Tribunal is asked to grant an interrogatory and it
grants the interrogatory, and then the witness is
subsequently called to give evidence. When he is called to
give evidence, he ought to be questioned upon all the
matters which are relevant to the trial. The Tribunal does
not want to have to read his evidence in one place and then
his interrogatory in some other place.

Is there any objection, Mr. Dodd, to accepting it in this
case?

MR. DODD: No, I have no objection, Mr. President. That is
the situation. It was granted before Puhl was called. He was
called here for cross-examination and I do not recall off-
hand whether or not counsel inquired concerning these
matters that are contained therein. We have no objections.
It may be some annoyance to the Tribunal, which we regret.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor