Chapter XXXII: Part I: , Page 1579, date 12 November 1938, signed by the Defendant (1)

Göring.

Similar decrees are contained in 1939 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, Page 282, signed by Defendant Göring, and 1941 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, Page 722, signed by Defendants Frick and Bormann.

Finally, in the year 1943, the Jews were placed beyond the protection of any judicial process by a decree signed by the Defendants Bormann and Frick and others; and the police became the sole arbiters of punishment and death: 1943 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, Page 372, signed by Frick and Bormann.

I ask the Court to take judicial notice of the _Reichsgesetzblatt_ decrees cited.

Side by side with the passage of these decrees and their execution went still another weapon, wielded by the Party and the Party-controlled state. These were the openly sponsored and official anti-Jewish boycotts against Jews. I now offer Document 2409-PS, the published diary of Joseph Goebbels, Exhibit Number USA-262, and I invite the Court’s attention to Page 290 where, under date of 29 March 1933—the Court will find the quotation on the top of Page 1 of the translation of 2409-PS—“The boycott appeal is approved by the entire Cabinet.” And again on the 31st of March 1933 he wrote, on Page 1, first sentence of Paragraph 2, “We are having a last discussion among a very small circle and decide that the boycott is to start tomorrow with all severity.”

The Defendant Streicher and the Defendant Frank, together with Himmler, Ley, and others, were members of a central committee who conducted the 1933 boycott against the Jews. Their names are listed in Document 2156-PS, _National Socialist Party Correspondence_, 29 March 1933, Exhibit Number USA-263.

As early as 1933 violence against the Jews was undertaken. Raids were conducted, by uniformed Nazis, on services within synagogues. Attending members of the synagogues were assaulted and religious insignia and emblems were desecrated. A report of such an occurrence is contained in the official dispatch from the American Consul General in Leipzig, dated 5 April 1933.

I offer in evidence Document 2709-PS . . .

THE PRESIDENT: What do you refer to 2156 for?

MAJOR. WALSH: Only, Sir, to show the names of the Defendants Streicher and Frank as members of the boycott committee.

THE PRESIDENT: I see.

MAJOR WALSH: Document 2709 has been given Exhibit Number USA-265. From Paragraph 1 of Page 1, I quote:

“In Dresden, several weeks ago, uniformed Nazis raided the
Jewish prayer house, interrupted the evening religious service,
arrested 25 worshippers, and tore the holy insignia or emblems
from their headcovering worn while praying.”

At a meeting here in Nuremberg, before the representatives of the German press, the Defendant Streicher and Mayor Liebel of Nuremberg revealed in advance to the gathered members of the press that the Nuremberg synagogue was to be destroyed.

I offer in evidence Document 1724-PS, Exhibit Number USA-266, which is minutes of this meeting, dated 4 August 1938. From Page 1, Paragraph 4 of the original, I quote the translation before the Court:

“The breaking up of the synagogue (information must still be
secret). On August 10, 1938, at 10 o’clock a.m., the breakup of
the synagogue will commence. Gauleiter Julius Streicher will
personally set the crane into motion with which the Jewish
symbols, Star of David, _et cetera_, will be torn down. This
should be arranged in a big way. Closer details are still
unknown.”

The Defendant Streicher himself supervised the demolition.

In support of this, I offer Document 2711-PS, a newspaper account of 11 August 1938, Exhibit Number USA-267, Paragraph 1 of the translation before the Court:

“In Nuremberg the synagogue is being demolished; Julius
Streicher himself inaugurates the work by a speech lasting more
than an hour and a half. By his order then—so to speak as a
prelude of the demolition—the tremendous Star of David came off
the cupola.”

These accounts of violence were not localized anti-Semitic demonstrations but were directed and ordered from a centralized headquarters in Berlin. This is established by a series of teletype messages sent by the Berlin Secret State Police headquarters to chiefs of police throughout Germany on 10 November 1938, which contained instructions pertaining to the pre-arranged demonstration.

I now refer to Document 3051-PS, previously offered in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-240. I shall quote the relevant part of one of these confidential orders signed by Heydrich, the translation before the Court, the last half on Page 2:

“Because of the attempt on the life of the Secretary of the
Legation, Von Rath, in Paris tonight, 9-10 November 1938,
demonstrations against Jews are to be expected throughout the
Reich. The following instructions are given on how to treat
these events:

“1) The Chiefs of the State Police or their deputies must get in
telephonic contact with the political leaders who have
jurisdiction over their districts and must arrange a joint
meeting with the appropriate inspector or commander of the Order
Police to discuss the organization of the demonstrations. At
these discussions the political leaders have to be informed that
the German Police has received from the Reichsführer SS and
Chief of the German Police the following instructions, in
accordance with which the political leaders should adjust their
own measures.

“a) Only such measures should be taken which do not involve
danger to German life or property. (For instance synagogues are
to be burned down only when there is no danger of fire to the
surroundings.)

“b) Business and private apartments of Jews may be destroyed but
not looted. The police is instructed to supervise the execution
of this order and to arrest looters.”

To this point we have found a gradual and a mounting emphasis in the campaign against the Jews, one of the basic tenets of the Nazi Party and of the state. The flame of prejudice has now been lighted and fanned. The German people have been to a large degree indoctrinated, and the seeds of hatred have been sown. The German State is now armed and is prepared for conquest and the force of world opinion can now safely be ignored. Already they have forced out of Germany 200,000 of its original 500,000 Jews. The Nazi-controlled German State is therefore emboldened; and Hitler, in anticipation of the aggressive wars already planned, casts about for a “whipping boy” upon whose shoulders can be placed the blame for the world catastrophe yet to come. The speech before the Reichstag on 30 January 1939 is set forth in Document Number 2663-PS, which I now offer in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-268. I quote:

“If the international Jewish financiers within and without
Europe succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world
war, the result will not be the Bolshevization of the world and
the victory of Jewry, but the obliteration of the Jewish race in
Europe.”

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn for 10 minutes.

[_A recess was taken._]

THE PRESIDENT: Major Walsh, it would, I think, assist the Tribunal if you were careful to state the PS number which we have rather more clearly and slowly. You see, the United States Exhibit number we do not have and I do not know whether it would be better to state the United States Exhibit number first and then give us the PS number; I am not sure it would. Anyhow, if you would go a little more slowly and make certain we get the PS number, it would be helpful.

MAJOR WALSH: Yes, Your Honor.

The Chief Editor of the official organ of the SS, the _Schwarze Korps_, expressed similar sentiments on August 8, 1940.

I offer in evidence Document 2668-PS; this is Exhibit Number USA-269, Page 2 of the original and the full excerpt before the Court in translation, as follows:

“Just as the Jewish question will be solved for Germany only
when the last Jew has been deported, so the rest of Europe
should also realize that the German peace which awaits it must
be a peace without Jews.”

These were not the only officials of the Party and of the State to voice the same views. The Defendant Rosenberg wrote for the publication _World Struggle_. I offer in evidence Document 2665-PS, Exhibit Number USA-270. This publication, Volumes 1 and 2, April and September 1941, Page 71 of the original, reads, “The Jewish question will be solved only when the last Jew has left the European continent.”

The Court will recall Mr. Justice Jackson’s reference to the apologetic note contained in the diary of Hans Frank when he wrote, and I quote from Document 2233(c)-PS, Exhibit Number USA-271, bottom of Page 1 of the translation:

“Of course, I could neither eliminate all lice nor all Jews in
only 1 year’s time. But in the course of time and, above all, if
you will help me, this end will be attained.”

THE PRESIDENT: I forgot to say, Major Walsh, it would help us too, when you do not begin at the beginning of a paragraph, if you would indicate about where it is.

MAJOR WALSH: Yes, Sir; I shall do that.

While this presentation is not necessarily intended to be a chronological narrative of events in the treatment of the Jewish people, it would appear at this point that we should pause to examine the record to date. We find that the Nazi Party and the Nazi-dominated State have, by writings and by utterances, by decrees and by official acts, clearly expressed their intent: the Jew must be eliminated.

How do they now progress to the accomplishment of this purpose? The first requirement was a complete registration of all Jews; and inasmuch as the policy relating to the Jews followed on the heels of German aggression, such registration was required not only within the Reich but successively within the conquered territories. For example, within Germany registration was required by decree (_Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, 1938, Page 922, 23 July, signed by the Defendant Frick); within Austria (_Reichsgesetzblatt_, Volume 1, 1940, Page 694, 29 April); within Poland (Kurjer Krakowski, 5 October 1939); in France (_Journal Officiel_ Number 9, Page 92, 30 September 1940); in Holland (_Verordnungsblatt_, Number 6, 10 January 1941, signed by the Defendant Seyss-Inquart).

The second step was to segregate and concentrate the Jews within restricted areas called ghettos. This policy was carefully worked out, and perhaps the confidential statement taken from the files of the Defendant Rosenberg will best serve as an illustration.

I offer in evidence a copy of a memorandum from Defendant Rosenberg’s file entitled, “Directions for Handling of the Jewish Question,” Document 212-PS, Exhibit Number USA-272. I quote from the top of Page 2 of the translation before the Court:

“The first main goal of the German measures must be strict
segregation of Jewry from the rest of the population. The
presupposition of this is, first of all, the registration of the
Jewish population by the introduction of a compulsory
registration order and similar appropriate measures. . . .”

And then, in the second sentence, in the second paragraph, on Page 2, I continue:

“. . . all rights of freedom for Jews are to be withdrawn. They
are to be placed in ghettos and at the same time are to be
separated according to sexes. The presence of many more or less
closed Jewish settlements in White Ruthenia and in the Ukraine
makes this mission easier. Moreover, places are to be chosen
which make possible the full use of the Jewish manpower as a
consequence of present labor programs. These ghettos can be
placed under the supervision of a Jewish self-government with
Jewish officials. The guarding of the boundaries between the
ghettos and the outer world is, however, the duty of the police.

“Also, in the case in which a ghetto could not yet be
established, care is to be taken through strict prohibition and
similar suitable measures that a further intermingling of blood
of the Jews and the rest of the populace does not continue.”

In May 1941 Rosenberg, as the Reich Minister for the Eastern regions, issued directions confining the Jews to ghettos in the Ukraine.

I offer in evidence Document 1028-PS, Exhibit Number USA-273, and from the first sentence of the translation before the Court, I read:

“After the customary removal of Jews from all public offices,
the Jewish question will have to be solved conclusively through
the institution of ghettos.”

The policies expressed in the quoted Rosenberg memoranda were not isolated instances nor the acts of one individual. It was the expressed state policy. Defendant Von Schirach played his part in the program of “ghettoization.” I offer in evidence Document 3048-PS, Exhibit Number USA-274. Before the Court is a full translation of that which I wish to quote. The Defendant Von Schirach spoke before the European Youth Congress held in Vienna on 14 September 1942, and from Page 2, Column 2, of the Vienna edition of the _Völkischer Beobachter_ of 15 September, I quote:

“Every Jew who exerts influence in Europe is a danger to
European culture. If anyone reproaches me with having driven
from this city, which was once the European metropolis of Jewry,
tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of Jews into the ghetto
of the East, I feel myself compelled to reply, ‘I see in this an
action contributing to European culture.’”

One of the largest ghettos was within the City of Warsaw. The original report made by SS Major General Stroop concerning this ghetto is entitled, “The Warsaw Ghetto is no more.” I now offer this in evidence at this time, if the Court please, and request leave to refer to it later on in this presentation—Exhibit Number USA-275, 1061-PS, top of Page 3 of the translation, Document 1061-PS:

“The Ghetto thus established in Warsaw was inhabited by about
400,000 Jews.

“It contained 27,000 apartments with an average of two and a
half rooms each. It was separated from the rest of the city by
partitions and other walls and by walling-up of thoroughfares,
windows, doors, open spaces, _et cetera_.”

Some idea of the conditions within this ghetto can be gathered from the fact that an average of six persons lived in every room. Himmler received a report from the SS Brigadeführer Group A, dated 15 October 1941 which further illustrates the establishment and operation of the ghettos. I offer Document L-180 in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-276. The translation, if the Tribunal please, is from the second paragraph from the bottom of Page 9:

“Apart from organizing and carrying out measures of execution,
the creation of ghettos was begun in the larger towns at once
during the first days of operations. This was especially urgent
in Kovno because there were 30,000 Jews in a total population of
152,400.”

And from the last paragraph on Page 9 continuing to page 10 I quote:

“In Riga the so-called ‘Moscow suburb’ was designated as a
ghetto. This is the worst dwelling district of Riga, already now
mostly inhabited by Jews. The transfer of the Jews into the
ghetto district proved rather difficult because the Latvian
dwellings in that district had to be evacuated and residential
space in Riga is very crowded. Of the 28,000 Jews living in Riga
24,000 have been transferred into the ghetto so far. In creating
the ghetto the Security Police restricted themselves to mere
policing duties, while the establishment and administration of
the ghetto as well as the regulation of the food supply for the
inmates of the ghetto was left to civil administration; the
Labor Offices were left in charge of labor allocation. In the
other towns with a larger Jewish population ghettos shall be
established likewise.”

Jews were also forced into ghettos in the Polish Province of Galicia. No words in my vocabulary could describe quite so adequately the conditions as those contained in the report from Katzmann, Lieutenant General of Police, to Krüger, General of the Police East, dated 3 June 1943, entitled “Solution of Jewish Question in Galicia.” I offer Document L-18 in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-277. From the translation, if the Court please, we will begin with the last three sentences on Page 11, that is, the last three sentences prior to the word “nothing” which is there on that page: “Nothing but catastrophical conditions were found in the ghettos of Rawa-Ruska and Rohatyn.”

“The Jews of Rawa-Ruska, fearing the evacuation, had concealed
those who suffered from spotted fever in underground holes. When
evacuation was to start it was found that 3,000 Jews suffering
from spotted fever lay about in this ghetto. In order to destroy
this center of pestilence at once, every police officer
inoculated against spotted fever was called into action. Thus we
succeeded in destroying this plague-boil, losing thereby only
one officer. Almost the same conditions were found in Rohatyn.”

On Page 19 of this same document, L-18, the last paragraph, I wish to quote further.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

MAJOR WALSH: “Since we received more and more alarming reports
on the Jews becoming armed in an ever-increasing manner, we
started, during the last fortnight in June 1943, an action
throughout the whole of the District of Galicia with the intent
to use strongest measures to destroy the Jewish gangsterdom.
Special measures were found necessary during the action to
dissolve the living quarters in Lvov where the dug-out mentioned
above had been established. Here we had to act brutally from the
beginning in order to avoid losses on our side; we had to blow
up or to burn down several houses. On this occasion the
surprising fact arose that we were able to catch about 20,000
Jews instead of 12,000 Jews who had registered. We had to pull
at least 3,000 Jewish corpses out of every kind of hiding place;
they had committed suicide by taking poison.”

On Page 20 of this document, the third paragraph I read:

“Despite the extraordinary burden heaped upon every single SS
and Police member during these actions, the mood and spirit of
the men were extraordinarily good and praiseworthy from the
first to the last day.”

These acts and actions of removal and slaughter were not entirely without profit. The author of this report, on the ninth page of this translated copy stated, and I quote the last paragraph:

“Together with the evacuation action we executed the
confiscation of Jewish property. Very high values were
confiscated and handed over to the Special Staff ‘Reinhard.’
Apart from furniture and many textile goods, the following
amounts were confiscated and turned over to Special Staff
‘Reinhard.’”

I would like to read a few of the many and assorted items listed under this confiscation:

“20.952 kilograms of golden wedding rings; 7 stamp collections,
complete; 1 suitcase with pocket knives; 1 basket of fountain
pens and propelling pencils; 3 bags filled with rings—not
genuine; 35 wagons of furs.”

I will not burden the Court with the detailed lists of objects of value and of the money confiscated; but the foregoing is cited to illustrate the thoroughness of the looting of a defenseless people, even to the 11.73 kilograms of gold teeth and inlays.

By the end of 1942 Jews in the Government General of Poland had been crowded into 55 localities whereas before the German invasion there had been approximately 1,000 Jewish settlements within this same area. This is reported in the 1942 official gazette for the Government General, Number 94, Page 665, 1 November 1942.

The Jews having been registered and confined within the ghettos, they now furnished a reservoir for slave labor. It is believed pertinent at this time to point out the difference between the slave labor and labor duty. The latter group were entitled to reasonable compensation, stated work hours, medical care and attention, and other social security measures, while the former were granted none of these advantages, being in fact on a level below a slave.

Defendant Rosenberg, as Reich Minister for the Eastern Occupied Territories, set up within his organization a department which, among other things, was to seek a solution for the Jewish problem by means of forced labor. His plans are contained in another document, 1024-PS, which I now offer in evidence, Exhibit Number USA-278.

I quote the first part of Paragraph 3 of Page 1 of the document entitled, “General Organization and Tasks of Our Office for the General Handling of Problems in the Eastern Territory.” This is dated 29 April 1941. This brief excerpt reads as follows:

“A general treatment is required for the Jewish problem for
which a temporary solution will have to be determined (forced
labor for the Jews, creation of ghettos, _et cetera_).”

Thereafter he issued instructions that Jewish forced labor should be effected and utilized for every manual labor; and I refer to Document 212-PS, already in evidence, Exhibit Number USA-272. From Page 3 of this document, Paragraph 5 and Paragraph 7, I quote Paragraph 5:

“The standing rule for the Jewish labor employment is the
complete and unyielding use of Jewish manpower regardless of age
in the reconstruction of the Eastern Occupied Territories.”

And from Paragraph 7 of the same page I read:

“Violations of German measures, especially evasions of the
forced labor regulations, are to be punished by death in the
case of the Jews.”

From the ghettos Jewish labor was selected and sent to a concentration area. Here the usable Jews were screened from those considered worthless. For example, a contingent of 45,000 Jews would be expected to yield 10,000 to 15,000 usable laborers. My authority for this statement is contained in a RSHA telegram to Himmler, marked “urgent” and “secret,” dated 16 December 1942.

I offer this document, 1472-PS, in evidence, Exhibit Number USA-279; and from the translation before the Court I read the last four lines:

“In the total of 45,000 are included physically handicapped and
others (old Jews and children). In making a distribution for
this purpose, at least 10,000 to 15,000 laborers will be
available when the Jews arriving at Auschwitz are assigned.”

From Document L-18, a report from the Lieutenant General of the Police, Katzmann, to General of the Police East, Krüger, already in evidence, Exhibit Number USA-277, we find the clearly outlined nature of the forced labor situation for the Jews. On Page 2 of the translation, starting with Paragraph 6, I read:

“The best remedy consisted in the formation of forced labor
camps by the SS and Police Leader. The best opportunity for
labor was offered by the necessity to complete the ‘Dg. 4’ road
which was extremely important and necessary for the whole of the
southern part of the front and which was in a catastrophically
bad condition. On October 15, 1941, the establishment of camps
along the road was commenced; and despite considerable
difficulties there existed, after a few weeks only, seven camps
containing 4,000 Jews.”

From Page 2, Paragraph 7, I read:

“Soon more camps followed these first ones, so that after a very
short time the completion of 15 camps of this kind could be
reported to the superior leader of SS and police. In the course
of time about 20,000 Jewish laborers passed through these camps.
Despite the hardly imaginable difficulties arising from this
problem I can report today that about 160 kilometers of the road
are completed.”

And from Page 2, Paragraph 8, I read:

“At the same time all other Jews fit for work were registered
and distributed for useful work by the labor agencies.”

And on Page 5, last part of Paragraph 1 . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Don’t you want the remainder of that paragraph on Page 2?

MAJOR WALSH: It is such a lengthy document, I hesitated to burden the record with so much of it, and had extracted certain portions therefrom, but I shall be very glad to read it into the record.

THE PRESIDENT: “Then, for instance, the Municipal Administration
at Lvov had no success in their attempts to house the Jews
within a closed district which would be inhabited only by Jews.
This question, too, was solved quickly by the SS and Police
Leader through his subordinate officials.”

MAJOR WALSH: With the Court’s permission, I add that to the record.

Reading the last paragraph of Page 2:

“When the Jews were marked by the Star of David, as well as when
they were registered by the labor agencies, the first symptoms
appeared in their attempts to dodge the order of the
authorities. The measures which were introduced thereupon led to
thousands of arrests. It became more and more apparent that the
civil administration was not in a position to solve the Jewish
problem in an approximately satisfactory manner. Then, for
instance, the municipal administration at Lvov had no success in
their attempts to house the Jews within a closed district which
would be inhabited only by Jews. This question, too, was solved
quickly by the SS and Police Leader through his subordinate
officials. This measure became the more urgent as in the winter
of 1941 big centers of spotted fever were noted in many parts of
the town . . . .”

And on Page 5 of this document, L-18, last half of Paragraph 1, I read:

“During the removal of the Jews into a certain quarter of the
town several sluices were erected at which all the work-shy and
asocial Jewish rabble were caught during the screening and
treated in a special way. Owing to the peculiar fact that almost
90 percent of artisans working in Galicia were Jews, the task to
be solved could be fulfilled only step by step, since an
immediate evacuation would not have served the interest of war
economy.”

And again, on Page 5, Paragraph 2, the latter part, beginning with “cases were discovered”:

“Cases were discovered where Jews, in order to acquire any
certificate of labor, not only renounced all wages but even paid
money themselves. Moreover, the organizing of Jews for the
benefit of their employers grew to such catastrophical extent
that it was deemed necessary to interfere in the most energetic
manner for the benefit of the German name.

“Since the administration was not in a position and showed
itself too weak to master this chaos, the SS and Police leader
simply took over the entire disposition of labor for Jews. The
Jewish labor agencies, which were manned by hundreds of Jews,
were dissolved. All certificates of labor given by firms or
administrative offices were declared invalid, and the cards
given to the Jews by the labor agencies were validated by the
police offices by stamping them. In the course of this action,
again, thousands of Jews were caught who were in possession of
forged certificates or who had obtained, surreptitiously,
certificates of labor by all kinds of pretexts. These Jews also
were exposed to special treatment.”

If the Court please, at this time I would like to arrange for the showing of a very short motion picture, perhaps one of the most unusual exhibits that will be presented during the Trial. With the Court’s permission I would like to call upon Commander Donovan to assist.

THE PRESIDENT: Need we adjourn for it or not?

MAJOR WALSH: No, Sir. The movie itself is very, very short, Sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

COMMANDER DONOVAN: May it please the Tribunal, the United States now offers in evidence Document Number 3052-PS, Exhibit Number USA-280, entitled “Original German 8-millimeter Film of Atrocities against Jews.”

This is a strip of motion pictures taken, we believe, by a member of the SS and captured by the United States military forces in an SS barracks near Augsburg, Germany, as described in the affidavits now before the Tribunal.

We have not been able to establish beyond doubt in which area these films were made, but we believe that to be immaterial.

The film offers undeniable evidence, made by Germans themselves, of almost incredible brutality to Jewish people in the custody of the Nazis, including German military units.

It is believed by the Prosecution that the scene is the extermination of a ghetto by Gestapo agents, assisted by military units. And, as the other evidence to be presented by the Prosecution will indicate, the scene presented to the Tribunal is probably one which occurred a thousand times all over Europe under the Nazi rule of terror.

This film was made on an 8-millimeter home camera. We have not wished even to reprint it, and so shall present the original, untouched film captured by our troops. The pictures obviously were taken by an amateur photographer. Because of this, because of the fact that part of it is burned, because of the fact that it runs for only 1½ minutes, and because of the confusion on every hand shown on this film, we do not believe that the Tribunal can properly view the evidence if it is shown only once. We therefore ask the Tribunal’s permission to project the film twice as we did before the Defense Counsel.

This is a silent film. The film has been made available to all Defense Counsel, and they have a copy of the supporting affidavits, duly translated.

[_The film was shown._]

COMMANDER DONOVAN: [_Continuing._] May it please the Tribunal, while the film is being rewound I wish to say that attached to the affidavits offered in evidence is a description of every picture shown in this film. And, with the Tribunal’s permission, I wish to read a few selections from that at this time, before again projecting the film, in order to direct the Tribunal’s attention to certain of the scenes:

Scene 2—A naked girl running across the courtyard.

Scene 3—An older woman being pushed past the camera, and a man in SS uniform standing at the right of the scene.

Scene 5—A man with a skullcap and a woman are manhandled.

Number 14—A half-naked woman runs through the crowd.

Number 15—Another half-naked woman runs out of the house.

Number 16—Two men drag an old man out.

Number 18—A man in German military uniform, with his back to the camera, watches.

Number 24—A general shot of the street, showing fallen bodies and naked women running.

Number 32—A shot of the street, showing five fallen bodies.

Number 37—A man with a bleeding head is hit again.

Number 39—A soldier in German military uniform, with a rifle, stands by as a crowd centers on a man coming out of the house.

Number 44—A soldier with a rifle, in German military uniform, walks past a woman clinging to a torn blouse.

Number 45—A woman is dragged by her hair across the street.

[_The film was shown again._]

COMMANDER DONOVAN: [_Continuing._] We submit to the Tribunal for its permanent records this strip of 8-millimeter film.

MAJOR WALSH: It is difficult from this point to follow the thread of chronological order or a topical outline. So numerous are the documents and so appalling the contents that in this brief recital the Prosecution will make no effort to itemize the criminal acts. Selected documents, however, will unfold the crimes in full detail.

Before launching a discussion of the means utilized to accomplish the ultimate aim, that is the extermination of the Jewish people, I now turn to that fertile source of evidence, the diary of Hans Frank, then Governor General of occupied Poland. In a cabinet session on Tuesday, 16 December 1941, in the government building at Kraków, the Defendant Frank made a closing address to the session. I offer now in evidence that part of the document, Number 2233(d)-PS, Exhibit Number USA-281, identified CV 1941, October to December, and from Page 76, line 10, to Page 77, line 33, of the original and of the entire translation before the Court. I quote:

“As far as the Jews are concerned, I want to tell you quite
frankly that they must be done away with in one way or another.
The Führer said once: ‘Should united Jewry again succeed in
provoking a world war, the blood of not only the nations which
have been forced into the war by them will be shed, but the Jew
will have found his end in Europe.’ I know that many of the
measures carried out against the Jews in the Reich at present
are being criticized. It is being tried intentionally, as is
obvious from the reports on the morale, to talk about cruelty,
harshness, _et cetera_. Before I continue, I would beg you to
agree with me on the following formula: We will principally have
pity on the German people only and nobody else in the whole
world. The others, too, had no pity on us. As an old National
Socialist I must also say: This war would be only a partial
success if the whole lot of Jewry would survive it, while we
would have shed our best blood in order to save Europe. My
attitude towards the Jews will, therefore, be based only on the
expectation that they must disappear. They must be done away
with. I have entered negotiations to have them deported to the
East. A large conference concerning that question, to which I am
going to delegate the State Secretary Dr. Bühler, will take
place in Berlin in January. That discussion is to take place in
the Reich Security Main Office with SS Lieutenant General
Heydrich. A great Jewish migration will begin, in any case. “But
what should be done with the Jews? Do you think they will be
settled down in the ‘Ostland’ in villages? This is what we were
told in Berlin: Why all this bother? We can do nothing with them
either in the ‘Ostland’ or in the ‘Reichskommissariat.’ So
liquidate them yourselves.

“Gentlemen, I must ask you to arm yourselves against all feeling
of pity. We must annihilate the Jews, wherever we find them and
wherever it is possible, in order to maintain there the
structure of the Reich as a whole. This will, naturally, be
achieved by other methods than those pointed out by Bureau Chief
Dr. Hummel. Nor can the judges of the Special Courts be made
responsible for it because of the limitations of the frame work
of the legal procedure. Such outdated views cannot be applied to
such gigantic and unique events. We must find at any rate a way
which leads to the goal, and my thoughts are working in that
direction.

“The Jews represent for us also extraordinarily malignant
gluttons. We have now approximately, 2,500,000 of them in the
Government General, perhaps with the Jewish mixtures and
everything that goes with it, 3,500,000 Jews. We cannot shoot or
poison those 3,500,000 Jews; but we shall nevertheless be able
to take measures which will lead, somehow, to their
annihilation, and this in connection with the gigantic measures
to be determined in discussions with the Reich. The Government
General must become free of Jews, the same as the Reich. Where
and how this is to be achieved is a matter for the offices which
we must appoint and create here. Their activities will be
brought to your attention in due course.”

This, if the Tribunal please, is not the planning and scheming of an individual, but is the expression of the official of the German State, the appointed Governor General of occupied Poland. The methods used to accomplish the annihilation of the Jewish people were varied and, although not subtle, were highly successful.

I have from time to time made reference to certain utterances and actions of the Defendant Rosenberg as one of the leaders and policy makers of the Nazi Party and German State. It is perhaps reasonable to assume that the Defendant Rosenberg will claim for many of his actions that he pursued them pursuant to superior orders. I have before me, however, a captured document, Number 001-PS, marked “secret,” dated 18 December 1941, entitled “Documentary Memorandum for the Führer—Concerning Jewish Possessions in France,” Exhibit Number USA-282. I dare say that no document before this Tribunal will more clearly evidence the Defendant Rosenberg’s personal attitude, his temperament, and convictions toward the Jews more strongly than this memorandum, wherein he, in his own initiative, urges plundering and death. I offer in evidence Document Number 001-PS. The body of the memorandum reads as follows:

“In compliance with the order of the Führer for protection of
Jewish cultural possessions, a great number of Jewish dwellings
remained unguarded. Consequently, many furnishings have
disappeared because a guard could, naturally, not be posted. In
the whole East the administration has found terrible conditions
of living quarters, and the chances of procurement are so
limited that it is not possible to procure any more. Therefore,
I beg the Führer to permit the seizure of all Jewish home
furnishings of Jews in Paris who have fled or will leave shortly
and those of Jews living in all parts of the occupied West to
relieve the shortage of furnishings in the administration in the
East.

“2. A great number of leading Jews were, after a short
examination in Paris, again released. The attempts on the lives
of members of the Forces have not stopped; on the contrary they
continue. This reveals an unmistakable plan to disrupt the
German-French co-operation, to force Germany to retaliate and,
with this, evoke a new defense on the part of the French against
Germany. I suggest to the Führer that, instead of executing 100
Frenchmen, we shoot in their place 100 Jewish bankers, lawyers,
_et cetera_. It is the Jews in London and New York who incite
the French Communists to commit acts of violence, and it seems
only fair that the members of this race should pay for this. It
is not the little Jews but the leading Jews in France who should
be held responsible. That would tend to awaken the anti-Jewish
sentiment.”—Sighed—“A. Rosenberg.”

[_Dr. Thoma approached the lectern._]

THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you to speak slowly so that your application will come to me through the earphones correctly.

DR. THOMA: Since the Prosecutor is now dealing with the case against my client, Rosenberg, may I be permitted to voice an objection to Document 212-PS, Exhibit Number USA-272. The Prosecutor claims that this document was a directive issued by the Minister for the East. It begins with the words . . .

THE PRESIDENT: None of that has come through on the earphones. I don’t understand you. You had better begin again.

DR. THOMA: The Prosecutor presented earlier today Document Number 212-PS, Exhibit Number USA-272, claiming that its content was a directive issued by the Minister for the East on the treatment of Jews. In this document he is said to have given instructions that violations of German regulations by Jews, especially violations of the compulsory labor laws, could only be punished by death. This document does not originate with the Defendant Rosenberg; nor did it by mistake . . .

THE PRESIDENT: More slowly, please.

DR. THOMA: This document does not originate with the Defendant Rosenberg. It bears neither a date nor an address, nor his signature. I, therefore, object to the assertion that this document originated with the Defendant Rosenberg.

THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. I don’t think that Counsel for the Prosecution said that, that Document 212-PS emanated from Rosenberg. I didn’t so understand him.

DR. THOMA: I understood him to say that it was a directive issued by the Minister for the East; and if I am not mistaken, he also said it was dated April 1941. At that time there was no Ministry for the East. Rosenberg was only named Minister for the East in July 1941.

THE PRESIDENT: I will ask the Counsel for the Prosecution.

MAJOR WALSH: It is my understanding, Sir, that that document, 212-PS, was taken from the captured files of Rosenberg.

DR. THOMA: That is true, it was found among the papers of the Defendant Rosenberg; the Defendant Rosenberg claims, however, that he has never seen this document, that he knows nothing about it, and that it has never passed through his hands.

THE PRESIDENT: Rosenberg, when he is called as a witness or when you appear to speak for him, will be able to say that he has never seen the document before. All that Counsel, for the Prosecution has said—and it appears to be true—is that the document was found in Rosenberg’s file. You can say or prove by Rosenberg’s evidence when you call Rosenberg—if you do call him—that he never saw the document. Do you understand?

DR. THOMA: Yes, thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: It is 5 o’clock now, so we will adjourn.

[_The Tribunal adjourned until 14 December 1945 at 1000 hours._]

TWENTIETH DAY
Friday, 14 December 1945

_Morning Session_

DR. KAUFFMANN: May I bring up two points with regard to yesterday’s and all future presentation of evidence on the section dealing with Crimes against Humanity.

Firstly, I request that the affidavit of the witness Pfaffenberger, which was submitted yesterday, be stricken from the record. The witness himself will later have to be cross-examined, since his affidavit is fragmentary in most important points. In many cases it does not appear whether his statements are based on personal observations or on hearsay, and therefore it is too easy to draw false conclusions. The witness did not mention that the Camp Commander Koch and his inhuman wife were condemned to death by an SS court, among other things, on account of these occurrences. It is, of course, possible to ascertain the complete facts by questioning the witness at a later stage of the Trial. But until then the Tribunal and all members of the Prosecution and the Defense must be continually influenced by such dreadful testimony.

The contents of this testimony are so horrifying and so degrading to the human mind that one would like to avert one’s eyes and ears. In the meantime such statements make their way into the press of the whole world, and civilization is justly indignant. The consequences of such prejudiced statements are incalculable. The Prosecutor clearly recognized the significance of this testimony and exposed the sorry documents in yesterday’s proceedings.

If weeks or months pass before such testimony is rectified, its initial effect can never be wholly eliminated; but truth suffers and justice is endangered thereby. Surely, Article 19 of the Charter does not envisage bringing about such a state of affairs.

Secondly, I should, therefore, like to suggest that at the present stage of the Trial the testimony of witnesses who live in Germany and whose appearance here in court is possible should not be read in the proceedings. For at this stage of the Trial the charges being made are even more terrible than those referring to wars of aggression, since the tortured lives and deaths of human beings are involved.

At the beginning of the Trial the Tribunal refused to admit testimony of the witness Schuschnigg, and it is my opinion that what was valid then should be all the more valid at this stage of the Trial.

I should like to emphasize my suggestion particularly with regard to the Defendant Dr. Kaltenbrunner himself, since it was not until the spring of 1943 that he became Chief of the Reich Security Main Office and since, in the opinion of the Defense, many, if not all, of his signatures were forged and the entire executive function attached to the concentration camps and the things connected with them lay exclusively in Himmler’s hands. That I hope to prove at a later date. I mentioned it now in order to justify my suggestion.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to hear counsel for the Chief Prosecutor of the United States.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May it please the Tribunal, Mr. Dodd, who had charge of the matter which is under discussion, left for the United States yesterday; and I shall have to substitute for him as best I can.

This Tribunal sits under a Charter which recognized the impossibility of covering a decade of time, a continent of space, a million acts, by ordinary rules of proof, and at the same time finishing this case within the lives of living men. We do not want to have a trial here that, like the trial of Warren Hastings, lasted 7 years. Therefore the Charter sets up only two standards by which any evidence, I submit, may be rejected. The first is that evidence must be relevant to the issue. The second is it must have some probative value. That was made mandatory upon this Tribunal in Article 19 because of the difficulty of ever trying this case if we used the technical rules of Common Law proof.

One of the reasons this was a military tribunal, instead of an ordinary court of law, was in order to avoid the precedent-creating effect of what is done here on our own law and the precedent control which would exist if this were an ordinary judicial body.

Article 19 provides that the Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and non-technical procedure and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value. That was made mandatory, that it shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value. The purpose of that provision, Your Honors, I may say, was this: That the whole controversy in this case—and we have no doubt that there is room for controversy—should be centered upon the value of evidence and not on its admissibility.

We have no jury. There is no occasion for applying jury rules. Therefore, when a piece of evidence is offered, there are two questions which arise: Does it have probative value? If it has no probative value, then it should not encumber the records, of course. The second is, does it have relevancy? If it has not, of course it should not come in.

The evidence in question has relevance; no one questions that. No one can say that an affidavit, duly sworn, does not have some probative value. What probative value it has, the weight of it, should be determined on the submission of the case. That is to say, if a witness has made a statement in an affidavit, and it is denied by Mr. Kaltenbrunner, and you believe that the denial has weight and credibility, of course, the affidavit should not be considered in the final consideration of the case. But we are dealing here with events that took place over great periods of time and great distances. We are dealing with witnesses widely scattered and a situation where communications are almost at a standstill.

If this affidavit stands at the end of this case undenied, unchallenged, it is not, then, beyond belief that you would give it value and weight. An affidavit might bear internal evidence that it lacked credibility, such as evidence where the witness was talking of something of which he had no personal knowledge. I do not say that every affidavit that comes along has probative value just because it is sworn to. But it seems to me that if we are to make progress with this case, this simple system envisioned by this Charter, which was the subject of long consideration, must be followed; that if, when a piece of evidence is presented, even though it does not comply with technical rules governing judicial procedures, it is something which has probative value in the ordinary daily concerns of life, it should be admitted. If it stands undenied at the close of the case, as many of these things will, then, of course, there is no issue about it; and it saves the calling of witnesses, which will take an indefinite period of time as we have already seen. I may say that the testimony of the witness Lahousen, which took nearly 2 days, could have been put in, in this Court, in 15 minutes in affidavit form, and all that was essential to it could have been placed before us; and if it were to be denied you could then have determined its weight.

We want to adhere to this Charter. I submit it is no reason for deviating from the Charter that an affidavit recites horrors. I should have thought that the world could not be more shocked by recitals of horrors in affidavits than it has been in the documents that have proceeded from sources of the enemy itself. There is no reason in that for departing from the plain principles of the Charter.

I think the question of orderly procedure and the question of time are both involved in this. I think that the Tribunal should receive affidavits, and we have prepared them—we hope carefully, we hope fairly—to present a great many things that would take days and days of proof. I may say that this ruling is more important in subsequent stages of this case than it is on this particular affidavit.

There is another reason, perhaps. We have some situations in which a member of an accused organization, who is directly hostile to our position because the accusation would reach him within the accused class, has made an affidavit or affidavits which constitute admissions against interest; but on some other issue he makes statements which we believe are untrue and incredible; and we do not wish to vouch for his general credibility by calling him as a witness, but we wish to avail ourselves of his admission. Those things we think since we have to make our proof largely from enemy sources. All this proof and every witness 8 months ago were in the hands of the enemy. We have to make our proof from them. God alone knows how much proof there is in this world that we have not been able to reach. We submit that the orderly procedure here is to abide by this Charter and admit these affidavits. If they stand unquestioned at the end of the case, there is no issue about them. If they are questioned, then the weight is a matter which you would determine on final submission.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, I have three questions I should like to ask you. The first is: Where is Pfaffenberger?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That I cannot answer at the moment, but I will get an answer as quickly as I can. It is unknown to us at the moment. If we are able to ascertain, I will inform you at the conclusion of the noon recess.

THE PRESIDENT: The second point to which I wish to draw your attention is Article 16(e) of the Charter, which contemplates cross-examination of witnesses by the defendants. The only reason why it is thought that witnesses who are available should not give evidence by affidavit is because it denies to the Defense the opportunity of cross-examining them.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think that this provision means just exactly what it says. If we call a witness, they have the right of cross-examination. If he is not called, they have the right to call him, if he is available, as their witness; but not, of course, the right of cross-examination. The provision itself, if Your Honor notices, reads that they have the right to cross-examine any witness called by the Prosecution; but that does not abrogate or affect Article 19, that we may obtain and produce any probative evidence in such manner as will expedite the Trial.

THE PRESIDENT: Then the next point to which I wish to draw your attention is Article 17(a). As I understood it, you were arguing that it was mandatory upon the Tribunal to consider any evidence which was relevant. Therefore, I draw your attention to Article 17(a) which gives the Tribunal power to summon witnesses to the Trial.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is right. I think there is no conflict in that whatever. The power of the Tribunal to summon witnesses and to put questions to them was introduced into this Charter through the continental systems of jurisprudence. Usually there are not Tribunal witnesses in our procedure in the States. Witnesses are called only by one of the parties; but it was suggested by the continental scholars that in this kind of case, since we were utilizing a mixture of the two procedures, the Tribunal itself should have the right to do several things. One is to summon witnesses, to require their attendance, and to put questions to them. I submit that this witness, whose affidavit has been received, can be called, if we can find him, by the Tribunal and questioned.

The next provision—and it bears, on the spirit of this—of Article 17 is that the Tribunal has the right to interrogate any defendant. Of course, under our system of jurisprudence the Tribunal would have no such right, because the defendant has the unqualified right to refrain from being a witness; but in deference again to the continental system, the Tribunal was given the right to interrogate any defendant, and his immunities, which he would have under the Constitution of the United States, if he were being tried under our system, were taken away.

I submit that the perfect consistency in those provisions empowers the Tribunal on its own motion (Article 17) to summon witnesses, to supplement anything that is offered, to put any questions to witnesses and to any defendant.

If any witness is called, the right of cross-examination cannot be denied; but that does not abrogate Article 19, which was intended to enable us to put our case before the Tribunal so that the issue would then be drawn by the defendants and the weight of what we offer determined on final submission.

THE PRESIDENT: Lastly, there is Article 17(e), which I suppose, in your submission, would entitle the Tribunal, if they thought right, after receiving the affidavit, to take the evidence of Pfaffenberger on commission.