The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)
Nuremberg, war crimes, crimes against humanity

The Trial of German Major War Criminals

Sitting at Nuremberg, Germany
20th June to 1st July 1946

One Hundred and Sixty-Seventh Day: Saturday, 29th June, 1946
(Part 4 of 4)

[Page 321]

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?


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

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


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.)

[ Previous | Index | Next ]

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

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.