Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-17/tgmwc-17-167.04
Last-Modified: 2000/09/01

THE PRESIDENT: Could you tell us in what part of the book
this is and what is the number?

DR. BERGOLD: L-22. It is approximately in the middle of the
book. Bormann acted as secretary of the conference and wrote
the minutes. The prosecution stated that Bormann's
incidental remarks showed that he had participated in the
discussion, at that conference, of plans for the inclusion
of Russian territory into the Reich. I shall therefore have
to read this incidental remark which he made.

THE PRESIDENT: This is L-221, not L-22.

DR. BERGOLD: The first incidental remark is in the
fourteenth paragraph and reads as follows:

  "Incidentally, does an educated class still exist in the
  Ukraine, or are the Ukrainians of a higher class to be
  found only as emigrants outside Russia?"

Page 4 has a very similar remark which reads:

                                                  [Page 322]

"It has frequently become apparent that Rosenberg has a
great deal of liking for the Ukrainians. He wants to enlarge
the old Ukraine considerably."

And then the last remark on Page 8 - Page 5 in the English
text, third paragraph from the end, a note for Party member
Kloepfer:

  "Please ask Dr. Mayer as soon as possible for the data on
  the proposed organization and the filling of the
  positions."

Then at the end, Page 6 of your original, last paragraph:

  "Incidentally, the Fuehrer emphasized that activity of
  the Churches was out of the question. Papen had already
  submitted to him through the Foreign Office a long
  memorandum stating that now the right moment for re-
  establishing the Churches had arrived. But that was
  definitely out of the question."

This refers to a statement by Hitler.

Then I come to Document 1520-PS. I want first of all to draw
the Tribunal's attention to the fact that in this record,
which Lammers wrote, Bormann is not even mentioned at the
beginning among those present, apparently because his
activity as secretary was considered a matter of course.

I should now like to read from Page 2 of your original, from
the paragraph beginning:

  "Then the discussion turned to the question of freedom of
  religion ...."

I shall begin on the eighth line of the fourth paragraph:

  "Bormann agreed with this attitude absolutely but said
  that the only question was whether the Reich Minister for
  the East, who after all had a name in Germany, would not
  through such a law create a too far-reaching independence
  which would then have repercussions in the Reich. The
  Churches themselves were going to define what was meant
  by 'religious freedom,' and he predicted that such a law
  would result in hundreds of new letters and complaints on
  the part of the Churches within the Reich."

I omit one sentence.

  "Finally it was agreed that the entire question should
  not be settled by me," that is, Lammers, "in the form of
  a law, but that the Reich Commissioners should take the
  existing religious freedom for granted and should issue
  the necessary directives."

Then Document 072-PS, a letter from Bormann to Rosenberg; of
that I should like to read the third paragraph:

  "The Fuehrer emphasized that in the Balkans the use of
  your experts would not be necessary, since there were no
  art treasures to be confiscated. In Belgrade, there was
  only the collection of Prince Paul, which would be
  returned to him intact. The remaining material of the
  lodges, etc., would be taken care of by the
  representatives of Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich."

From Document 062-PS I should like to read the introduction
in which the defendant Hess deals with the orders he had
issued for the treatment of airmen; I quote:

  "The French civilian population received by radio
  official instructions on how they were to treat landing
  German aircraft."

I come then to Document 205-PS, dated 5th May, 1943,
circular letter No. 70/43. I shall quote the following
sentence:

  "I request that along the lines set out in the attached
  copy the necessity for a firm but just treatment of the
  foreign workers be made clear in a suitable manner to
  members of the Party and the population."

This circular letter itself was issued by the defendant
Sauckel.

I now come to Document 025-PS, of 4th September, 1942 and I
read:

THE PRESIDENT: Which number are you going to now?

DR. BERGOLD: 025-PS, dated 4th September, 1942. I shall
quote the last sentence of the second paragraph:

                                                  [Page 323]

  "Therefore, and this is also the opinion of the
  Reichsmarschall and of Reichsleiter Bormann, the problem
  of domestic workers must be solved in a way different
  from that mentioned above."

And then I quote from paragraph 3, starting with the second
sentence:

  "In connection with this" - namely, the employment in
  Germany of woman workers from the East - "and
  Reichsleiter Bormann also agrees - members of the armed
  forces or other agencies who have brought female domestic
  workers into the Reich illegally will have their action
  subsequently approved; approval of such action in the
  future will not be withheld, regardless of the official
  recruiting scheme. The determining factor in the
  recruiting of Ukrainian female workers is the specific
  wish of the Fuehrer that only girls whose conduct and
  appearance permit a permanent stay in Germany should be
  brought into the Reich."

Then, from figure 1 I shall read nearly the last paragraph
on Page 3 of your document book.

  "Recruiting especially in the case of domestic servants
  must be on a voluntary basis, and must in practice be
  carried out with the help of the office of the
  Reichsfuehrer SS."

This concludes my quotations from the document book of the
prosecution, and I should only like to refer now to the
Russian Document USSR 172, and to Document Donitz 91, of
which I shall make use in my final speech.

This, then, brings me to the end of the presentation of my
evidence.

MR. DODD: Mr. President, may I suggest that if this witness
Kempka can be located, counsel might submit an affidavit or
an interrogatory to any persons who have knowledge of the
alleged death of defendant Bormann. We certainly would have
no objection to it.

DR. BERGOLD: I have no objection either.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, have you any information as to
what this witness Kempka can tell us about the death, of
Bormann?

DR. BERGOLD: According to the affidavit which I read to the
Tribunal, he is said to have been present when Bormann was
killed by a tank explosion. He would, therefore, be an
eyewitness of Bormann's death, like the witness Rattenhuber,
from whom the witness Krueger obtained her information. If
the witnesses Kempka and Rattenhuber were found, I would be
satisfied with affidavits and interrogatories.

MR. DODD: Mr. President, I have seen this statement by
Kempka some time ago, which is in affidavit form, and which
has come to our attention. But my recollection is that he
does not state positively that he saw him die. But I again
suggest we might make further efforts to get an affidavit
from him, or an interrogatory, or carefully question him
about the circumstances of Bormann's death.

THE PRESIDENT: A statement was made to the Tribunal at one
time by the prosecution suggesting that Bormann had escaped
from the Chancellery in a tank and then the tank had been
stopped or blown up on a bridge, and that two of the persons
inside the tank had last seen Bormann wounded, or something
of that sort.

MR. DODD: Yes, I think that is the best information.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, if the prosecution has any material
in the shape of affidavits or anything of that sort, the
Tribunal would like to have them placed before them.

MR. DODD: Yes, sir. I am sure we do not have an affidavit.
As I recall, it was last autumn when someone sent down here
what purported to be a narrative account by Kempka of the
last days in Berlin. Now, I will try to look that up and
present it to you.

                                                  [Page 324]


THE PRESIDENT: If you can go into the matter, then possibly
they might be located through the investigations which you
would make.

MR. DODD: Very well.

THE PRESIDENT: Then interrogatories or affidavits could be
obtained.

MR. DODD: Very well, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Then that concludes your presentation of
evidence on behalf of Bormann?

DR. BERGOLD: That is all I have, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Thank you.

Colonel Pokrovsky, is there anything you wish to say?

I beg your pardon, Dr. Bergold, you have offered in evidence
all the exhibits that you want to offer and have given them
exhibit numbers, have you?

DR. BERGOLD: Yes, in my document book.

THE PRESIDENT: You are intending to offer your document book
as evidence?

DR. BERGOLD: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: It has exhibit numbers on each document, has
it?

DR. BERGOLD: Yes, each document has a number.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

Colonel Pokrovsky, the Tribunal would like to know whether
you have arrived at any agreement with Dr. Stahmer on behalf
of the defendant Goering with reference to affidavit
evidence or witnesses, with reference to the Katyn matter.

COLONEL POKROVSKY: My Lord, we have had three conferences
with the defence counsel. After the second meeting, I told
the Tribunal that in order to shorten the proceedings, the
Soviet prosecution was willing to read into the record only
a part of the evidence submitted. About fifteen minutes ago,
I had a meeting with Dr. Exner and Dr. Stahmer, and they
told me that their understanding of the Tribunal's ruling
was that the old decision for the summoning of two witnesses
was still in force, and that only additional documents were
now under discussion.

In view of this interpretation of the Tribunal's ruling, I
do not think that we shall be able to come to an agreement
with the defence. As I see it, the decision in this matter
must now rest in the hands of the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal orders that, unless an agreement
is arrived at, the evidence shall not be given entirely by
affidavits and that the three witnesses on either side shall
be called first thing on Monday morning at 10 o'clock,
unless you can arrive at an agreement before that, that the
evidence is to be offered in affidavits.

DR. SIEMERS (counsel for the defendant Raeder): Mr.
President, may I say something on this subject?

A number of counsel who are interested in the Katyn case had
a conference this morning; among them were Professor Exner
and Dr. Stahmer. We agreed to ask the Tribunal to allow two
witnesses to be examined here in person by the defence.
These witnesses would be Colonel Ahrens and First Lieutenant
von Eichborn. We also agreed to dispense with the hearing of
the third witness, but decided to request that an affidavit
of this witness, and in addition two other affidavits, be
submitted. I believe this to be a suggestion which both
satisfies us and saves the most time: two witnesses would be
heard and three affidavits submitted.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal sees no objection
to there being two witnesses called and one affidavit. But
their order was that three witnesses on either side ... that
the evidence should be limited to three witnesses on either

                                                  [Page 325]

side, and they, therefore, are not prepared to allow further
affidavits to be given. The evidence must be confined to the
evidence of three persons on either side.

They may give their evidence either orally or by affidavit.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, as far as I was informed, the
original decision stated that three witnesses were allowed,
but did not mention affidavits. That was the reason why Dr.
Stahmer and Dr. Exner assumed that, regardless of the
witnesses, certain individual points could be proved by
means of affidavits. I think that the hearing of two
witnesses and three affidavits would be quicker than the
examination of three witnesses.

THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid Dr. Stahmer and Dr. Exner drew a
wrong inference from the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal
intended and intends that the evidence should be limited to
three witnesses on either side, and whether they give their
evidence orally or by affidavit does not matter. We left it
to the Soviet prosecution and to defendants' counsel to see
whether they could agree that it should be given by
affidavit in order to save time. But that was not intended
to extend the number of witnesses who might give evidence.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, in that case, I should be
grateful if Dr. Stahmer and Professor Exner would be heard.
I myself have not been in Nuremberg recently; I was
therefore not present when these details were discussed and
it is difficult for me ... I see that Dr. Stahmer is now ...
Perhaps Dr. Stahmer himself could speak about it.

DR. STAHMER: I have just heard Dr. Siemers's report, at
least a part of it. I mentioned already during the last
discussion, Mr. President, that Professor Exner and I had
understood the decision to mean that, besides the three
witnesses, we were also allowed to submit affidavits.
Indeed, the original decision granted us five witnesses,
though it made the reservation that only three of them could
give evidence here in Court. We assumed therefore, that we
could submit affidavits of those witnesses out of the five
who had been originally granted us but who would not give
evidence in Court. The original decision granted us five
witnesses, and then a later decision of the Tribunal

THE PRESIDENT: Listen, that is not the recollection of the
Tribunal; and if you say so, you must produce written
evidence that that was the decision. The Tribunal's
recollection is not that five witnesses were allowed.

DR. STAHMER: Yes, yes, yes. I shall submit written evidence
of these decisions to the Tribunal. I cannot remember
offhand when they were made, but originally five witnesses
were granted; then I named another witness, who was also
granted, and it was only afterwards that the decision to
allow only three witnesses to give evidence in Court was
announced.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, when the order was made limiting
it to three out of five, there was no reference in that
order to affidavits, as far as I know.

DR. STAHMER: No, affidavits were not mentioned then.

THE PRESIDENT: What I am telling you is that the Tribunal in
making that order of limitation intended to limit the whole
of the evidence to three witnesses on either side, because
the matter is only a subsidiary allegation of fact, and the
Tribunal thinks that at this stage of the proceedings such
an allegation of fact ought not to be investigated by a
great number of witnesses, and three witnesses are quite
sufficient on either side.

Therefore, the Tribunal does not desire to hear, and did not
intend that it should have to hear, any evidence except the
evidence of three witnesses, either orally or by affidavit.

The Tribunal will now adjourn.

(The Tribunal adjourned until 1st July at 1000 hours.)

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