Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-10/tgmwc-10-97.08
Last-Modified: 1999/12/22

Q. What is it? Is it one of your efforts to localise the
war?

A. I did not understand that last question?

Q. I say, is this one of your efforts to localise the war?

A. The war against Russia had started, and I tried at the
time - the Fuehrer held the same view - to get Japan into
the war against Russia in order to end the war with Russia
as soon as possible. That was the meaning of that telegram.

Q. This was not only the policy of the Fuehrer, it was also
your policy as the then Minister for Foreign Affairs?

A. Yes, yes.

Q. I have a few more questions to ask. You state that you
never heard a thing about the cruelties perpetrated in the
concentration camps?

A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. During the war you, as Minister for Foreign Affairs,
studied the foreign Press and the foreign newspapers. Did
you know what the foreign Press was saying?

A. No, that is only true up to a point. I had so much to
read and so much work to do every day that on principle I
only received the foreign political news selected for me
from the foreign Press. Thus, during the whole of the war I
never had any news from abroad about the concentration
camps, until one day your armies - that is, the Soviet
Russian armies - captured the camp at Maidanek in Poland.

On that occasion news came from our Embassy and I asked for
Press news, etc., to be submitted to me. How I took these
news releases to the Fuehrer has already been discussed
here. Before that I knew nothing about any atrocities or any
measures taken in the concentration camps.

Q. Did you know about the Notes of the Minister for Foreign
Affairs of the Soviet Union, Molotov, concerning the
atrocities committed by the German fascists in the
temporarily occupied territories of the Soviet Union, the
deportation into slavery of the people of the Soviet, the
pillaging?

A. I think that Notes reached me somehow through diplomatic
channels. I am not quite sure how; it may have come through
news agencies. However, I do remember that at the time - I
believe there were several Notes - at any rate, I remember
one of these Notes which I submitted to the Fuehrer. But
since the beginning of the Russo-German war, we could not
carry out any action in those territories, and we had no
influence there. Therefore, I am not informed about details.

Q. I was primarily interested in one fundamental fact,
namely - that you were aware of the Notes from the Minister
for Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union.

Tell me, please, do you know that millions of citizens were
driven into slavery to Germany?

A. No, I do not know that.

                                                  [Page 290]

Q. You do not know. And that those citizens were used as
slaves in Germany - you were not aware of that?

A. No. According to what I heard, all these foreign workers
are supposed to have been well treated in Germany. I think
it is possible, of course, that other things might have
happened, too, but, on the whole, I believe that a good deal
was done to treat these workers well. I know that on
occasion departments of the Foreign Office co-operated in
these matters with a view to preventing those things.
Generally speaking, however, we had no influence in that
sphere, as we were excluded from Eastern questions.

Q. Why were you informed that foreign labourers were treated
well, and why were you not informed that they were being
treated as slaves?

A. I do not think that this is correct. We in the Foreign
Office - in the case of the French, for instance, and any
amount of other foreign workers-co-operated by getting
musicians, etc., from France for them. We advised on
questions concerning their welfare. And I know that the
German Labour Front did everything in its power - at least
with regard to the sector which we covered to some extent -
to treat the workers well, to preserve their willingness to
work and to make their leisure pleasant. I know, at least,
that those of their efforts in which we co-operated were on
those lines.

Q. I now present a penultimate group of questions in
connection with the activities of the "Ribbentrop
Battalion." I must now request you to read the testimony of
S.S. Obersturmbannfuehrer Norman Paul Foerster. This
document is submitted as Exhibit USSR 445. Please pay
particular attention to Page 3 of Foerster's testimony (it
is underlined). It is stated there:

  "When in that same month, August 1941, I reported to the
  address given me in Berlin I learned that I had been
  transferred to Special Command S.S. of the Ministry of
  Foreign Affairs. An assistant of the Foreign Ministry,
  Baron von Kuehnsberg, was at the head of the S.S. Special
  Command. In this command there were about 80 to 100 men
  altogether, and 300 or 400 men were added later. The
  Special Command was later re-christened the Ministry of
  Foreign Affairs Battalion Z.B.V. for special employment.
  
  I was received by Baron von Kuehnsberg in a building
  belonging to Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where the
  Special Command was quartered. He explained to me that
  the Special Command was created on instructions from the
  Reich Minister of Foreign Affairs von Ribbentrop.
  According to von Ribbentrop's instructions, our
  Sonderkommander was to move forward with the front line
  troops in occupied territory in order to protect the
  cultural treasures - (museums, scientific institutions,
  art galleries, and so forth) - from ruin and destruction
  by the German soldiers, to confiscate them and transport
  them to Germany."

Here I omit a few lines and then:

  "On the evening of 5th August, 1941, in the presence of
  Nietsch, Paulsen, Krallat, Ramersen, Lieben, and others,
  von Kuehnsberg informed us of Ribbentrop's verbal order
  according to which all scientific institutions,
  libraries, palaces, etc., in Russia were to be thoroughly
  ransacked and everything of any definite value was to be
  carried off."

Did you find that passage in the document?

A. Yes. Shall I answer?

Q. I should like you first of all to reply to my question,
reading as follows. You know that such a Battalion of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs existed, and that in accordance
with your directives, it was especially occupied - as is
stated in this document - in the preservation of cultural
treasures? Please reply to this question.

A. It is quite incorrect, as it appears in this document. I
cannot acknowledge it in any way and I must object to it.
The following is correct:

                                                  [Page 291]

This von Kuehnsberg is a man who was appointed, with a few
assistants, long before the Russian campaign, with the idea
even at that time of collecting in France documents which
might be of importance to us. Any order which ... at the
same time, I may say that he had orders to see to it that
there should be no unnecessary destruction of art treasures,
etc. In no circumstances did he receive from me orders to
transport these things to Germany, or to steal any of them.
. I do not know how this statement came to be made; but in
this form it is certainly not correct.

Q. You are against a great many of the documents here. That
does not mean that they are incorrect. I am not going to
quote from this testimony any further. I shall now refer to
a document - it is a letter from the defendant Goering
addressed to the defendant Rosenberg. It has already been
submitted to the Tribunal as Document 1985 PS. I shall here
quote paragraph 2 of the document. It has already been
submitted, so I shall read this letter addressed by Goering
to Rosenberg into the record. He writes:

  "After all the fuss and bother I very much welcomed the
  fact that an office was finally set up to collect these
  things, although I must point out that still other
  authorities had been set up by direction of the Fuehrer -
  above all, the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs, who
  sent a circular to all the organisations several months
  ago, stating amongst other things, that he had authority
  in the occupied territories and that he had been made
  responsible for the preservation of cultural treasures."

We can assume that the defendant Goering is better
acquainted with the circumstances anent the preservation of
art treasures, Do you not remember this letter?

A. I do not know how this letter from Reich Marshal Goering
came to be written. I do not know, but if there is any
mention in it of authorities or anything of that kind, that
could only refer to the fact that these art treasures were
secured in these territories. I have already stated here
that during the war neither I myself nor the Foreign Office
confiscated or claimed any art treasures whatsoever, whether
for my personal use or for our use. It is possible that
these art treasures were temporarily placed in safe custody.
Certainly none of them passed into our possession.
Therefore, it might be a misunderstanding in this letter,
because I remember clearly that at that time we were dealing
with the safe custody of art treasures. In France, for
instance, at that time robberies were beginning to be
committed in private houses and art galleries, etc., and I
still remember asking the Wehrmacht , to provide guards to
keep a watch on these art treasures, etc. At any rate, we in
the Foreign Office never saw any of these works of art
ourselves.

Q. I think we had better not go too deeply into details. I
should like to ask another question in this connection. Do
you not think that the term "Preservation of Art Treasures"
actually concealed the looting of art treasures of the
occupied territories?

A. We certainly never intended that, and I have never given
anyone an order to that effect. I should like to state that
here emphatically. Perhaps I may add that when I heard that
Kuehnsberg had suddenly assembled such a large staff, I
immediately ordered him to dissolve his entire battalion -
it was not a battalion; that was badly expressed - at any
rate, to dissolve it at once - and I think I even remember
dismissing him from the Foreign Office, because he did not
do what I wanted. I think he was re moved from his office.

Q. Very well. I am closing my interrogation. You were
Minister for Foreign Affairs as from the 4th February, 1938.
Your appointment to this post coincided with the initial
period, when Hitler had launched on a series of acts
involving a foreign policy which, at long last, led to the
world war. The question arises, why did Hitler appoint you
his Minister for Foreign Affairs just before embarking on a
wide programme of aggression? Do you not consider that he
thought you

                                                  [Page 292]

were the most suitable man for the purpose, a man with whom
he could never have any differences of opinion?

A. I cannot tell you anything about Adolf Hitler's thoughts.
He did not tell me about them. He knew that I was his
faithful assistant, that I shared his view that we must have
a strong Germany, and that I had to get these things done
through diplomatic and peaceful channels. I cannot say more.
What ideas he may have had, I do not know.

Q. Here is my last question. How can you explain the fact
that even now, when the entire panorama of the bloody crimes
of the Hitler regime has unfolded before your eyes, when you
fully realise the complete crash of that Hitlerite policy
which has brought you to the dock - how can you explain that
you are still defending this regime, and, furthermore, that
you are still praising Hitler and that you are still
declaring that the leading criminal clique consisted of a
group of idealists? How can you explain that?

THE PRESIDENT: That seems to be a number of questions in
one, and I do not think it is a proper question to put to
the witness.

GENERAL RUDENKO: I thought that this was only one question
which summarises everything.

BY GENERAL RUDENKO:

Q. Will you answer please, defendant Ribbentrop?

THE PRESIDENT: I told you, General Rudenko, that the
Tribunal does not think it a proper question to put.

GENERAL RUDENKO: I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, do you want to re-examine?

DR. HORN: I have no further questions to put to the witness,
Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Then the defendant can return to his seat.

THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Horn, I understand that you are
going to deal with your documents now, are you not?

DR. HORN: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: I see the time; we might perhaps adjourn for
ten minutes now.

(A recess was taken.)

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal wishes me to announce that the
Tribunal will not sit on Good Friday nor the Saturday
afterwards nor on Easter Monday.

MR. BARRINGTON: May it please the Tribunal, I am speaking
for all the four prosecutors, to put the prosecution's
comments on the document books which the defendant
Ribbentrop has put in. I am speaking for all the four
prosecutors, with one exception, the French Chief Prosecutor
who wishes to speak on two particular groups of documents
which are of special interest to the French Delegation. I
think, if it is convenient to the Tribunal, I might put the
whole of the prosecution's position before Dr. Horn puts his
answer if that is agreeable to him.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you agree, Dr. Horn, that he might put his
view first? Is it agreeable to you that Mr. Barrington
should put his position first?

DR. HORN: Yes.

MR. BARRINGTON: There are in all nine books in the English
version and the last two have only been received today, so,
as they contain perhaps about 350 documents, I regret that I
have not been able to agree in the list with Dr. Horn
himself, although I have acquainted him with the comments
that the prosecution proposes to make.

The first two books, comprising documents 1 to 44, have
already been read in open court on the 27th of March by Dr.
Horn, and I take it that your Lordship does not want them
gone into again.

THE PRESIDENT: No.

MR. BARRINGTON: So that leaves simply books 3 to 9, and I
have made out a working note of which I have copies. I do
not know whether the members of the Tribunal have them.

                                                  [Page 293]

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes.

MR. BARRINGTON: Your Lordship will see that on the left
column are the documents which the prosecution would object
to, and in the middle column are those that they would
allow, and there are remarks on the right hand side.

Although this does not show it, I have, for convenience,
divided these documents up into nine groups and so I think I
need not go through all the documents in detail unless there
is any particular question on any one of them.

Before saying what the groups are, perhaps I might make two
general remarks, that the prosecution takes the position
that the German White Books which figure very largely in
this list, White Books issued by the Government of the Nazi
conspirators, cannot be regarded as evidence of facts stated
therein: and secondly, that there are among these documents
a considerable number which are only discussions of subjects
in a very vague and tentative stage and a great many of
them, in the prosecution's view, are cumulative.

Now, of the first of the nine groups, I have broken them
down to: Czechoslovakia and if you will look at the note
that I have handed up, that consists of the first few
documents down to 45 - I beg your Lordship's pardon. That is
wrong. From after 45,there are six PS documents which are
already exhibits and there are 46 and 47 and over the page
there are 7 more on Czechoslovakia, and the prosecution's
position on those is that the six PS documents are allowed
and 46 and 47, but over the page 66, 67 and 69 are objected
to purely on the ground that they are cumulative -
cumulative, I think, of No. 68.

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