Chapter XVIII: Part II: of this case (4)

“If, once the termination of the campaign in the East has been
made known, we succeed in bringing Turkey to our side, an attack
on Syria and Palestine in the direction of Egypt is foreseen
after a minimum period of 85 days for the preparation of the
necessary forces and a preliminary securing of the Chersonese
passes and an improvement of Anatolian transportation routes
through Turkey, with German help.”

Two subparagraphs later, we find, in the same letter, in Subparagraph 8, a possible variation of this plan:

“If, even after the defeat of Soviet Russia, it would still
prove impossible to bring Turkey over to our side, a southward
thrust through Anatolia would have to be carried out against her
will.”

Your Honors, in the plans of fascist aggression Egypt played a large part. It is mentioned in Subparagraphs 6 and 7 of Part 2 of the letter quoted. Subparagraph 6 mentions—I quote word for word:

“An attack on Egypt from Cyrenaica, after the fall of Tobruk
could probably not be carried out before the end of 1941 or the
beginning of 1942.”

Subparagraph 7 stated:

“If the collapse of Soviet Russia creates the necessary
conditions, an advance by a motorized expeditionary force
through Transcaucasia, in the direction of the Persian Gulf, and
in the direction of Iraq, Syria, and Egypt is envisaged.

“Because of weather conditions, this attack will only become
possible at the beginning of 1942.”

This document, which I have just presented to the Tribunal, shows the turn of events intended by the fascist conspirators had the Red Army not put an end to their aggression. The fascist aggressors hoped to destroy the Soviet Union in a lightning war, to seize her wealth, to subjugate the Soviet people, and, by these means, to open for themselves the road to world domination.

Now, Your Honors, I have come to the end of my presentation. In concluding the presentation of documentary evidence regarding the aggression of the fascist conspirators against the Soviet Union, may I ask the Tribunal’s permission to sum up briefly as follows:

1. The criminal intent of attacking the U.S.S.R. for the purpose of plundering the Soviet Union and exploiting its riches for purposes of further German aggression was conceived by the fascist conspirators long before the actual launching of the attack.

2. The military preparations for the attack on the Soviet Union were conducted by the fascist criminals for at least a year and embraced not only Germany, but also satellite countries, particularly Romania, Finland, and Hungary.

3. The execution of the criminal designs of the fascist aggression consisting of the extermination of the peaceful population, the plunder of the Soviet Union, and the wresting of its territories, was planned long before the attack on the Soviet Union.

Fortunately for all freedom-loving nations in the world, the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, the Soviet people, and their Red Army completely overthrew all the fiendish plans of the fascist aggressors. The Red Army not only withstood and stopped the fascist aggression; but, together with the armies of its allies, brought Hitler Germany to complete catastrophe and the fascist war criminals to the dock.

I thus end my presentation, Your Honors.

COL. POKROVSKY: Your Honors, my task today is to present to you material on the “Criminal Violation of the Laws and Customs of War in the Treatment of Prisoners of War.”

Before beginning the presentation of evidence relative to the overwhelming guilt of the defendants in regard to the persons who were captured by the German Army, I consider it essential to make a few brief remarks.

As early as the end of the last century, the Hague Convention of 1899 established certain rules regulating the rights and responsibilities of belligerents in regard to prisoners of war. In pursuance of the provisions of the 1899 Convention, a number of states drew up the necessary instructions concerning the treatment of prisoners of war. I would like to cite three or four sentences taken from such instructions:

“The exclusive aim of the prisonership is to prevent the further
participation of prisoners in the war.

“A State may do everything necessary for the holding of
prisoners, but nothing more. . . .

“Prisoners of war may be employed to perform moderate work in
conformity with their social position. . . .

“In any case, such work must not be detrimental to health and
must not be of a humiliating nature. It must not contribute
directly to military operations against the native country of
the prisoners. . . .

“Prisoners of war lose their freedom but retain their rights. In
other words, military confinement is not an act of mercy on the
part of the captor, but the right of disarmed persons.”

It may surprise you to learn that the instructions cited are those issued by the German General Staff in Volume 18 of the circular published in 1902. The principle of humane treatment of prisoners and wounded servicemen was further developed in the Hague Convention of 1907 and the Geneva Convention of 1929.

Germany’s adherence to these conventions was definitely reflected in the German law regarding wartime courts-martial. I have in mind, particularly, the German law of 17 August 1938, and, in particular, Part “e”, Articles 73 and 75, which contain direct reference to the Convention of 1929. That was at a time when Hitlerite Germany had already begun the execution of her aggressive plans.

As the Tribunal will remember, the 23rd Article of the Hague Convention of 1907 states, “. . . it is forbidden . . . to kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms and possessing no means of defense, has unconditionally surrendered.”

It cannot be said that the brief code of the laws of war, which was, in fact, drawn up at The Hague and Geneva, encompassed the whole range of questions relating to the laws of war. The authors of these documents had, therefore, inserted the following proviso, and I will cite this excerpt:

“Until the opportunity presents itself of issuing a more
complete code of the laws of war, the High Contracting
Parties”—and I would remind the Tribunal that Germany was one
of those contracting parties—“consider it appropriate to affirm
that, in cases not provided for in the rules established by
them, the population and the belligerents remain safeguarded by
the principles of international law insofar as these principles
ensue from the customs, laws of humanity, and dictates of public
conscience in force between civilized nations.”

I should like to emphasize that in the appendix to the Convention on the Laws and Customs of Land War (Second Peace Conference, 1907), Article 4 of Chapter 2, concerning prisoners of war, states as follows—and you, Sir, will find the quotation on Page 4 of the document book, where it is underlined with red pencil:

“Prisoners of war remain in the custody of the enemy government
and not of the individuals or troops which had captured them.

“They must be treated humanely.

“All their personal belongings except arms, horses, and military
papers, will remain in their possession.”

It may, therefore, be considered definitely established that the governments of a number of states, including Germany, had unconditionally recognized their obligations to insure conditions under which prisoners of war should not suffer from arbitrary actions on the part of members of the Armed Forces of any state. The natural conclusion presents itself that in cases of violations of this obligation, the responsibility for any crime against a prisoner of war and especially for a definite system of crimes against the dignity, person, health, and life of prisoners of war, must fall on the government of the country which had signed the Convention.

In the light of the facts which I shall submit to you, on the basis of irrefutable documents, Germany’s solemn undertakings in regard to prisoners of war will appear to be nothing but unparalleled and cynical mockery of the very conception of treaties, laws, culture, and humanity.

I present to the Court, as our Exhibit Number USSR-51 (Document Number USSR-51), a note submitted by Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov, People’s Commissar of Foreign Affairs of the U.S.S.R., dated 25 November 1941, concerning the outrageous atrocities committed by the German authorities against Soviet prisoners of war; and I quote several extracts from this note, which you will find on Page 5 of the document presented to you:

“The Soviet Government is in possession of numerous facts
testifying to the systematic outrages and atrocities committed
by the German authorities against Red Army soldiers and against
commanders of the Red Army. Lately these facts have become
particularly numerous and have positively cried to high heaven,
thereby revealing once again the German war machine and the
German Government as a gang of bandits who utterly ignored all
codes of international law and all laws of human ethics.

“The Soviet Military Command is aware of numerous cases of the
subjection of captured Red Army men, the majority of them
wounded, to savage torture, ill-usage, and murder at the hands
of the German Military Command and German military units.
Captured Red Army men are tortured with bars of red-hot iron;
their eyes are gouged out, their feet, hands, fingers, ears, and
noses are hacked off, their stomachs ripped open, and they are
tied to tanks and torn asunder. Enormities and shameful crimes
of this sort are committed by German fascist officers and men
along the whole front, wherever they may be and wherever men and
commanders of the Red Army fall into their hands.

“For example, in the Ukrainian S.S.R., on the Island of
Khortitsa, on the Dnieper, after the German troops were forced
to retreat by the Red Army, the bodies of captured Red Army
soldiers who had been tortured by the Germans were found. The
prisoners’ hands had been cut off, their eyes gouged out, their
stomachs ripped open. In a southwesterly direction, in the
village of Repki in the Ukraine, after the Germans had retreated
from the positions they had occupied, the bodies of Battalion
Commander Bobrov, Political Officer Pyatigorsky, and two
privates were found. Their arms and legs had been nailed to
stakes, and on their bodies five-pointed stars had been cut with
red-hot knives. The faces of the dead men were cut and burnt.
Near these bodies was found the body of a Red Army man whom the
Germans had captured the previous day. His feet were burnt and
his ears were cut off. When our units captured the village of
Kholmy, on the Northwestern front, the mutilated bodies of Red
Army men were found. One of these had been thrown into a
bonfire. This was Private Adrei Ossipov of the Kazak S.S.R. At
Greigovo Station (Ukrainian S.S.R.), German units captured a
small group of Red Army men and kept them without food or drink
for several days. A number of the prisoners had their ears
slashed off, eyes gouged out, and hands cut off, after which
they had been run through with bayonets. In July of this year,
at Schumilino Station, German units captured a group of severely
wounded Red Army men and put them to death on the spot. In the
same month, in the vicinity of the town of Borisov,
(Bielorussian S.S.R.), the Hitlerites captured 70 severely
wounded Red Army men and poisoned them all with arsenic. In
August, near the township of Zabolotye, the Germans captured 17
severely wounded Red Army men on the battlefield. For 3 days
they gave them no food. The 17 men, their wounds still bleeding,
were then tied to telegraph posts, as a result of which three of
them died. The remaining 14 were saved from certain death by the
timely arrival of a Soviet tank unit commanded by Senior
Lieutenant Rybin. In the village of Lagutino, in the vicinity of
Bryansk, the Germans tied a Red Army man to two tanks and tore
him to pieces. At a point west of Bryansk, not far from the
Collective Farm, ‘Red October,’ 11 charred bodies of men and
officers of the Red Army captured by the fascists were found.
The arms and back of one of these Red Army men bore traces of
torture with a red-hot iron rod.

“There are a number of cases on record where the German Command
has driven captured Red Army men in front of their advancing
columns, during an attack, on pain of shooting. Such cases in
particular have been registered in the vicinity of the Vybor
State Farm, in the Leningrad region; in the vicinity of Yelna,
in the Smolensk region; in the Gomel region of the Bielorussian
S.S.R.; in the Poltava region of the Ukrainian S.S.R., and in a
number of other places.

“Wounded and sick Red Army men in hospitals which fell into the
hands of the German invaders were also systematically subjected
to outrageous indignities, torture, and savage ill-usage. On
innumerable occasions defenseless sick and wounded Red Army men
in hospitals have been bayonetted or shot by the fascist fiends
on the spot. Thus, at Malaya Rudnya, in the Smolensk Region,
fascist German units captured a Soviet field hospital and shot
the wounded Red Army men, and the male and female hospital
attendants. Among the victims were Privates Shalamov and Asimov
and Lieutenant Dileyev, who were wounded, and Verya Boiko, a 17
year-old hospital attendant, and others.

“There have been numerous cases of the abuse and violation of
woman’s honor when female hospital nurses and hospital workers
fell into the hands of the Hitlerite invaders.”

There are many similar facts in the same note. Then it continues:

“Marauding is rife among the men and officers of the Hitler
army. When the cold winter weather sets in, marauding assumes a
mass character, the Hitlerite robbers stopping at nothing in
their quest of war clothing. They not only strip warm clothes
and boots from the dead bodies of Soviet soldiers; but divest
wounded men of literally all their warm clothing—felt boots,
boots, socks, jerseys, quilted jackets, and warm caps—leaving
them stark naked. They did not even stop at taking the women’s
warm clothing from killed or wounded hospital nurses.

“Red Army prisoners were starved to death; they were left
without food for weeks or issued infinitesimal rations of moldy
bread or rotten potatoes. Depriving the Soviet prisoners of war
of food, the Hitlerites compelled them to rake the garbage cans
for remnants of food which the German soldiers had thrown out
or, as happened in a number of camps, including the camp at the
hamlet of Malaya Korma (Bielorussian S.S.R.), they fling the
carcasses of horses over the barbed wire fence to the Soviet
prisoners of war. In the Vitebsk camp, in Bielorussia, the Red
Army prisoners received almost no food at all for 4 months. When
a group of Red Army prisoners sent to the German Command a
written request for food to keep them alive, a German officer
inquired as to who wrote the statement. Five Red Army men who
affirmed that they had written it were shot on the spot.

“Similar cases of unbridled tyranny and brutality are to be
observed in other camps, Shitkiv, Demyan, and others.

“The German authorities and the German Government have
established a savage regime in the camps for Soviet prisoners of
war, with the object of mass extermination of Soviet prisoners
of war. The German High Command and the Ministry of Food and
Agriculture have issued a regulation establishing a food ration
for Soviet prisoners of war far inferior in quantity and quality
to that for prisoners of war of other countries. For instance,
this ration consists of 6,000 grams of bread and 400 grams of
meat per month, which dooms the Soviet prisoners of war to a
painful death from starvation.

“While enforcing this disgraceful and obviously unlawful regime
for Soviet prisoners of war with inhuman cruelty, the German
Government is doing its utmost to conceal from the public the
regulation it issued on this question. Thus, in reply to an
inquiry made by the Soviet Government, the Swedish Government
stated that the information concerning the aforesaid regulation
of the German Government published in the European and American
press was correct, but that the text of this regulation had not
been published and was therefore not available.”

The regulation which had not been available for the Swedish Government in the autumn of 1941 has now become available for the International Military Tribunal.

I assume that a very important circumstance is that these regulations were distributed through two channels: The High Command and the Nazi Party. In such a way, the extermination by starvation of the Soviet prisoners of war captured by the Germans had been planned and carried out both by the German High Command and by the Nazi Party.

I present to the Court these documents which were not available some time ago, as a heavy load on the scale of the Prosecution. On Page 17, Your Honors, you will find the document which has been cited by me. It bears the Document Number D-225 (Exhibit Number USSR-349):

“High Command of the Army, Army Equipment and the
Commander-in-Chief of the Replacement Training Army.

“Berlin, 6 August 1941.

“Subject: Food ration of Soviet prisoners of war.

“The Soviet Union did not subscribe to the agreement of 27 July
1929, concerning the treatment of prisoners of war. Consequently
we are not obliged to supply Soviet prisoners of war with food
corresponding in quantity or quality to the requirements of this
regulation. Taking the general food situation into
consideration, the following rations for Soviet prisoners of war
were established, which rations were considered adequate
according to medical findings:

“The ration in the camps for the prisoners of war (not employed
on essential work) amounted to:

“1. Bread, 6 kilograms; meat, 400 grams; fat, 440 grams; sugar,
600 grams, for 28 days.

“2. For prisoners doing special work: Bread, 9 kilograms; meat,
600 grams; fat, 520 grams; sugar, 900 grams, for 28 days.”

A similar regulation, headed, “Food Ration for Soviet Prisoners of War,” was sent as secret information by the Chancellery of the Nazi Party on 17 December 1941. I shall quote only one sentence from that Party directive, which you will find on Page 18 of the document book:

“An open discussion of the question regarding the food supply of
the prisoners of war either orally or in writing is forbidden
because of the possibility of enemy propaganda.”

Furthermore, the authors of the document emphasize that there is no danger of any substantial deterioration of the food supply of “our German people.” I consider that the hint is sufficiently clear. The document was distributed to the High Command of the Army, to the commands of corps areas, to the military authorities in Bohemia and Moravia, and to military commissioners in a number of cities.

The fascist conspirators established particularly low rations for men of the Red Army. On the basis of their own estimates the monthly ration for Soviet prisoners of war was 42 percent in regard to fats, 66 percent in regard to sugar and bread and 0 percent in regard to meat, as compared with the amount of food provided for prisoners of war from other armies fighting against Germany. Moreover, there was a special note in the directive itself. You will find the special note on Page 19 of the document book:

“If the ration for non-Soviet prisoners of war is reduced, the
ration for Soviet prisoners of war must be lowered accordingly.”

But even these starvation rations, which could not sustain the life of an adult person, more often than not existed only on paper.

I present another document to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-177 (Document Number USSR-177). . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, I do not think it matters very much, but when you said “0 percent” in regard to meat, when you were dealing with the percentage, was that correct? Because in setting out the amount of food which they were allowed, or were supposed to be allowed, there was 400 grams of meat for ordinary men and 600 grams of meat for other men doing special work, and I do not see how 400 grams can be 0 percent of the ration allowed to other non-Soviet prisoners.

COL. POKROVSKY: You are quite right, Sir. I have the same figures here, but there is no contradiction here at all. I am reporting to the Tribunal now that there were several directives, and the first one appears to be the best for the Soviet prisoners of war. It states that 400 grams of meat was the ration. The next directive, which established the percentage of food supply for the Soviet prisoners of war and others, shows 0 percent. As far as I understand it, if there was not meat for all of the prisoners of war, the Soviet prisoners would not receive any meat at all.

THE PRESIDENT: I see. Then you say that the words “on the basis of their own estimates” are referring to some estimates other than the estimate which you give. It does not matter about that, but I understand you to say that there are other estimates which show they did not give them anything. Please proceed.

COL. POKROVSKY: You are quite right, Sir.

I present to the Tribunal one more document dealing with the same question. That is Exhibit Number USSR-177. You will find it on Page 21 of your document book. This is a record of a conference of the Reich Ministry of Food (REM) under the direction of State Secretary Backe and Ministerial Director Moritz. The document is dated 24 November 1941, 1630 hours. Among those who took part in the conference were representatives of various departments, in particular General Reinecke—probably the Tribunal will remember that it was Reinecke who headed that particular phase of the work dealing with the prisoners of war—and Ministerial Director Mansfeld. The subject under discussion was the supply of food to Russian prisoners of war and civilian workers. I quote—Page 21 of your document book:

“1. Types of food.

“Attempts to produce a special Russian bread have proved that a
useful mixture consists of 50 percent rye bran, 20 percent
residue of sugar beet, 20 percent cellulose flour and 10 percent
flour made of straw or leaves.

“Meat not usually employed for human consumption can never
sufficiently satisfy a demand for meat. Russians must,
therefore, be fed entirely on horse flesh and on the meat of
animals which had not been adequately slaughtered and which, at
present, is issued in double quantities on the ration cards.

“With the present technique of fat production, inferior fats no
longer exist; the Russian will, therefore, receive good edible
fats.”

These derisive words can scarcely pass unnoticed. Russian prisoners of war, who had been receiving “meat not usually employed for human consumption,” were now receiving on their starvation rations only “meat which is today issued in double quantities on ration cards”; and instead of fats they were to get certain substances which can only be used for food because of “the present technique of the fat production.” And these products are called “good edible fats.”

The second part of the document is entitled “Rations.” I quote; the part being cited by me is on Pages 21 and 22 in your document book:

“Since there is a great discrepancy among the estimates of the
present experts of the Health Administration, the Reich Office
of Public Health, and the Army Medical Inspectorate as to the
necessary caloric requirements, a final decision concerning the
ration will be made in the course of the week by a smaller
circle of experts. Seven days of flour soup as a transition diet
and cancellation of the words ‘without work’ are from now on
decreed for such Russians as are at present in German camps.

“III. The number of Russians whom the Reich Ministry of Supply
can supply with food.”

I should note here that this sentence means, “The number of Russians whom the Reich Ministry of Food (REM) can provide has now been established.”

“State Secretary Backe was noncommittal in answer to persistent
questioning by General Reinecke and Ministerial Director
Mansfeld.”

It seems to me useful to point out that there is on the document a note in pencil to the effect that:

“It is requested to follow up the matter of the rations because
State Secretary Backe is, apparently, beginning to lose his
nerve.”

The signature is illegible.

It seems to me that this note vividly discloses the arguments that were going on over establishing a norm. Not by accident does it speak here of the wide discrepancy in the estimates concerning necessary caloric requirements of the experts of the Reich Health Administration and the Army Medical Inspectorate. As the Tribunal will remember, the witness Blaha testified in reply to my questions that almost all prisoners of war who died of starvation in the Dachau Camp were men of the Red Army. I shall submit evidence showing that the Dachau Camp was not an exception in that respect.

On 27 April 1942 the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the U.S.S.R. was forced to submit a new note. I present this note in our exhibit under Number USSR-51 (Document Number USSR-51). You will find the place I am referring to on Page 13 in your document book where it is marked in red pencil for your convenience. I quote:

“The Soviet Government now has at its disposal many hundreds of
new documents confirming the bloody crimes committed against
Soviet prisoners of war, dealt with in the note of the
Government of the U.S.S.R. dated 25 November 1941.

“It has been incontrovertibly established that the German
Command, desiring to take revenge for the defeats inflicted on
its army in the last few months, has everywhere introduced the
practice of physical extermination of Soviet prisoners of war.

“Along the entire length of the front, from the Arctic to the
Black Sea, bodies of slain Soviet war prisoners and tortured war
prisoners have been discovered. In almost every case these
corpses bear traces of the horrible torture which precedes
murder. In dugouts from which Red Army troops have driven the
Germans, in fortifications, and also in populated centers,
bodies of Soviet prisoners are found who have been murdered
after savage torture. Facts like the following, recorded in
affidavits signed by eye-witnesses, are being uncovered with
increasing frequency.

“On 2 and 6 March 1942, on the Crimean front, in the Lilly
region at 66.3, village of Jantora, the bodies of nine Red Army
men who had been taken prisoner were found so brutally tortured
by the fascists that only two of the corpses could be
identified. The nails had been drawn from the fingers of the
tortured prisoners of war, their eyes had been gouged out and
the right breast of one corpse had been completely cut out;
there were traces of torture by fire, numerous knife wounds, and
broken jaws.

“In Theodosia scores of bodies of tortured Azerbaijanian Red
Army men were found. Among them were Ismail-Zadch Jafarov, whose
eyes had been gouged out and ears slashed off by the Hitlerites;
Kuli-Zadch Alibekov, whose arms had been dislocated by the
Hitlerites, after which he had been bayonetted; Corporal Ali
Ogly Islom-Mahmed, whose stomach had been ripped open by the
Hitlerites; Mustafa Ogly Asherov, who had been bound to a post
with wire and died of his wounds in this position.”

And then, in the same note, is cited:

“In the village of Krasnaperovo, (Smolensk region) attacking
units of the Red Army found 29 dead and two naked bodies of
captured Red Army men and officers, none of whom had a single
bullet wound. All the prisoners had been knifed to death. In the
same district, in the village of Babaevo, the Hitlerites placed
58 captive Red Army men and two women ambulance workers in a
haystack and then set fire to the hay. When the people who had
been doomed to death attempted to escape from the flames, the
Germans shot them.

“In the village of Kuleshovka, the Germans captured 16 severely
wounded men and officers, stripped the prisoners, tore the
dressings from their wounds, tormented them with hunger, stabbed
them with bayonets, broke their arms, tore open their wounds,
and subjected them to other tortures, after which those who were
still alive were locked up in a house, which was then set on
fire.

“In the village of Strenevo of the Kalinin region, the Germans
locked 50 wounded captive Red Army men in a school building and
burnt them to death.

“In the town of Volokolamsk the invaders forbade Red Army men
who had been locked on the fifth floor of house Number 3/6
Proleterskaja Street to leave the house when a fire broke out.
Those who attempted to leave or to jump from the windows were
shot. Sixty prisoners perished in the flames or were killed by
bullets.

“In the village of Popovka (Tula region), the Germans drove 140
captive Red Army men into a barn and set fire to it. Ninety five
perished in the flames. Six kilometers from Pegostye Station, in
the Leningrad region, the Germans, in the course of their
retreat, under pressure of the Red Army troops, used explosive
bullets to kill over 150 Soviet war prisoners after frightful
beatings and savage torture. On most of the bodies the ears had
been slashed off, the eyes gouged out, and the fingers chopped
off, while several had had one or both hands hacked off and
their tongues torn out. Stars had been cut out on the backs of
three Red Army men. Not long before the liberation of the town
of Kondrovo, Smolensk region, by units of the Red Army in
December 1941, the Germans executed over 200 Red Army prisoners
of war whom they had taken through the city, naked and barefoot,
to the outskirts, shooting on the spot those who were exhausted
and unable to walk any further, as well as those local citizens
who gave them bread on their way through the city.”

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now for 10 minutes.

[_A recess was taken._]

COL. POKROVSKY: In their desire to exterminate as many Soviet prisoners of war as possible, the Nazi conspirators excelled themselves by inventing newer and ever newer methods of extermination. The note states:

“Of late a number of new cases have been established in which
the German Command made use of Soviet war prisoners for clearing
mine fields and for other hazardous work. Thus, in the district
of the villages of Bolshaja and Malaja Vloya, for 4 days the
Germans drove scores of prisoners lined up in close ranks, back
and forth over a mine field. Every day several prisoners were
blown to pieces by mines. Provision is made for this method of
killing prisoners in the orders of the German Command. Order
Number 109 to the 203rd Infantry Regiment states:

“‘General Field Marshal Rundstedt, Commander-in-Chief of the
Army, has ordered that apart from military operations, the
search for mines and the clearing of mine fields be done by
Russian prisoners, with a view to sparing German blood. This
also refers to German mines.’”

The marauding mentioned in the previous note is regarded not only as something possible, but is proclaimed as obligatory to all the soldiers of the German Army. The People’s Commissar refers to the following documents issued by the German Command, in stressing the fact that this marauding, done in wintertime, doomed the Red Army men to freeze to death:

“An order of the Staff of the 88th Regiment of the 34th German
Infantry Division, headed ‘Situation with Respect to Clothing,’
imposed: ‘Boots should be removed from Russian prisoners of war
without hesitation.’

“That this order is not an accidental one is seen from the fact
that even before the perfidious attack on the U.S.S.R., the
German Command provided for recourse to this system of supplying
its troops.

“Among the documents of the 234th Infantry Regiment of the 56th
Division, a circular was found numbered 121/4 and dated 6 June
1941, bearing the heading, ‘On the Principles of Supply in the
Eastern Areas.’ This circular states on Page 8:

“‘You must not count on being furnished clothing. Therefore it
is particularly important to remove serviceable boots from
prisoners of war and to make immediate use of all suitable
clothing, underwear, socks, et cetera.’”

The note points out:

“The Germans, with a view to exterminating Soviet prisoners of
war, deprived them of food, condemned them to slow starvation
and in some cases used a bad quality food. Soviet authorities
have in their possession Order Number 202 of the Staff of the
above mentioned 88th Regiment, which states:

“‘Carcasses of horses will serve as food for Russian prisoners
of war. Such points where carcasses of horses have been dumped
are designated by signs. They can be found along the highways in
Malo-Yaroslavets and in the villages of Romanovo and
Beloussovo.’

“Order Number 166/41 to the 60th Motorized Infantry Division is
quite outspoken in demanding the mass murder of Soviet prisoners
of war. This order states:

“‘Russian soldiers and noncommissioned officers are extremely
courageous in battle. Even small isolated units are always ready
to attack. Therefore no humane attitude towards the prisoners is
permissible. The destruction of the enemy by fire or by cold
steel must be continued until he is rendered completely
harmless. . . .’

“The regulations issued by the German Command on the treatment
of Soviet war prisoners, under Number 1/3058, contain the
following instructions:

“‘At the slightest sign of insubordination energetic and direct
action must be taken. Arms must be used ruthlessly. Bludgeons,
canes, and whips must not be used. Leniency, even towards
obedient and hard-working prisoners only indicates weakness and
must not be indulged in.’”—from Point 2.

“‘At work the distance to the prisoner must always be such as to
permit of immediate recourse to arms.’”—from Point 3.

“All this proved to be insufficient. The Order of the High
Command of the German Army, dated 14 January 1942 and issued in
the name of Hitler as Commander-in-Chief, states”—Paragraph 2:

“‘All clemency or humaneness towards prisoners of war is
strictly condemned. A German soldier must always make his
prisoner feel his superiority. . . . Every delay in resorting to
arms against a war prisoner harbors danger. The
Commander-in-Chief of the Army hopes that these directions will
be fully carried out.’

“The Soviet Government continues to receive reliable information
on the condition of captive Red Army men in the German-occupied
territories of the U.S.S.R. as well as in the German rear, and
in the German-occupied European countries. This information
testifies to the further deterioration of the regime instituted
for captive Red Army men, and that they are particularly bad off
in comparison with the war prisoners of other countries. It
further testifies to the mass dying of Soviet prisoners of war
from starvation and illness, from foul indignities and bloody
cruelty systematically applied to the Red Army men by the
Hitlerite authorities who have long since violated the most
elementary requirements of international law and human ethics.”

The note specially stresses the fact that the inhuman atrocities and the cruelty perpetrated by the German fascist gangsters against the Soviet war prisoners exceed the atrocities of Genghis Dhenghis-Khan, Baty, and Mamay.

In spite of that the note, which you will find on Page 14 of the document book, states:

“. . . In spite of all that, the Soviet Government, true to the
principles of humanity and respect for its international
obligations, has no intention, even in the given circumstances,
of applying retaliatory repressive measures against German
prisoners of war, and continues, as heretofore, to observe the
obligations undertaken by the Soviet Union with regard to the
regime for war prisoners specified by the Hague Convention of
1907, which was likewise signed but so perfidiously violated in
every one of its points by Germany.”

Later I shall quote a document written by a group of German prisoners of war. The authors of the document, on one hand, by a series of new facts, have added to the number of atrocities committed by the conspirators against the Soviet war prisoners; and on the other hand, they have confirmed that the Soviet Command is true to the principle of humanity in its attitude towards the German captives.

The military victory of the democratic powers opened the innermost secrets of Hitler’s archives. Along with a large number of documents that raise the curtain on the criminal plans of the conspirators, we have also obtained a wide opportunity of interrogating living witnesses. A whole series of questions become finally clear as, and when, the witnesses’ depositions are being cross-checked with the documentary archives. Much new evidence has also been received by us on the subject of the crimes against the prisoners of war.

Some information with regard to the criminal Hitlerite practice of exterminating the Soviet prisoners of war appeared as of 27 April 1942, in the official communication of V. M. Molotov, People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs in the U.S.S.R.

I shall here prove that this crime was part of the general conspiracy and was planned in advance of the aggressive war against the Soviet Union. The Tribunal will see that the regime for war prisoners was really the sum total of diverse methods for their extermination. Let us turn to the testimony of the witnesses.

The former Chief of Staff of the OKH, Franz Halder, interrogated on 31 October 1945, testified—I submit to the Tribunal an excerpt from this document, Exhibit Number USSR-341 (Document Number USSR-341):

“Witness: ‘Prior to the attack on Russia, the Führer called a
conference of all the commanders and persons connected with the
Supreme Command on the question of the forthcoming attack on
Russia. I cannot recall the exact date of this conference. I no
longer know whether it took place before or after the invasion
of Yugoslavia. At this conference the Führer stated that the
methods used in the war against the Russians will have to be
different from those used in the war against the West.’”

I beg your pardon, I have forgotten to tell you that the place which I quoted from was on Page 24 of your document book.

“Investigating Officer: ‘What else did he say?’

“Witness: ‘He said that the struggle between Russia and Germany
is a Russian struggle. He stated that since the Russians were
not signatories to the Hague Convention, the treatment of their
prisoners of war does not have to follow the articles of the
Convention.’”

DR. NELTE: Your Honor, Generaloberst Halder is in the military prison here at Nuremberg, and he is a very important witness not only to the testimony at hand but also in general. And I believe, according to our principles, which have been formulated by the High Tribunal in connection with Article 21 of the Charter, it might be important to hear this witness personally rather than use written testimony; and I ask the Tribunal to decide this question.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, did you wish to make any answer to Dr. Nelte’s request?

COL. POKROVSKY: With the permission of the Tribunal, I will submit to him my consideration in this case.

The testimony of Halder is of importance to us in one respect only, namely, that he states the fact of a special conference called by Hitler before the war; a conference at which the question of the treatment of Russian prisoners of war attracted particular attention. This fact also finds confirmation in other testimonies which were submitted by us to this Tribunal; and, therefore, I think that there is no reason and no need for examining this witness, since this interrogation may cause further delay as it will refer to this question only and the German Defense Counsel may ask unnecessary questions. In case the German Defense Counsel would consider it advisable to request the Tribunal to bring witness Halder here for cross-examination, it should be proper for the Defense to submit to the Tribunal, in accordance with established procedure, an application and explain for what reason it wants to cross-examine Witness Halder. The Tribunal would then have occasion to discuss this application and to grant it should they deem it proper to do so.

That is all I wanted to point out concerning this question.

[_There was a pause in the proceedings while the Judges conferred._]

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal considers that if the interrogation of General Halder is to be used, and it has been used, that General Halder must be brought for cross-examination, provided it is true that he is in Nuremberg.

When a witness is called he is liable to cross-examination and the only reason for allowing interrogations to be used is on account of the difficulty of bringing witnesses to Nuremberg. Therefore, if an interrogation is allowed to be used and the witness is in Nuremberg, the witness must be produced for cross-examination. I mean, of course, at a time which is convenient to Counsel.

Colonel Pokrovsky, if this witness, General Halder, is in Nuremberg, you will have him brought here at a time which is convenient to you during the presentation of your case.

COL. POKROVSKY: With the permission of the Court, we will finally find out where Halder is at the present time and, if he is really in Nuremberg, he will be produced as a witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

COL. POKROVSKY: We must here note a common fascist lie. Hitler was intentionally misrepresenting facts. That the Soviet Union had pledged to follow the statutes of the Hague Convention is generally known. Even the criminal code of the Soviet Union provides for the defense of the rights of prisoners of war, in accordance with international law, and those guilty of violations are considered criminally responsible. The note of the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs in the U.S.S.R., Mr. V. M. Molotov, on 27 April 1942, once again mentions the obligations of the Hague Convention which the Soviet Union had pledged to follow. To that note I have already referred.

Continuing, I shall again quote from Halder’s deposition concerning Hitler’s speech. You will find it on Page 24:

“Furthermore, he”—Hitler—“said that in view of the political
level of the Russian troops”—at this point several dots follow
in the original—“to be brief—he said that the so-called
commissars should not be considered prisoners of war.”

It is impossible not to remark here that, owing to the superior political consciousness of the Red Army soldiers, the Hitlerites saw a commissar or a communist in almost every prisoner of war. Then there is recorded the following question of the investigating officer and the reply to it:

“Investigating Officer: ‘Did the Führer say anything about an
order which should be issued on the subject?’

“Witness: ‘What I have just said was his order. He said that he
wanted it carried out even if no written order followed.’”

After Halder’s deposition, in the document book on your table, there is an extract from the deposition of the former Deputy Chief of the Operations Section of OKW headquarters, General Warlimont, dated 12 November 1945. He was testifying on oath before Lieutenant Colonel Hinkel of the American Army. This document is the result of work accomplished by our American colleagues. The American Prosecution has kindly placed this document at our disposal, which we in turn submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-263(a) (Document Number USSR-263(a)). I think the Defense Counsel wishes to submit another request to the Tribunal. I therefore cede my place.

DR. NELTE: Mr. President! Regarding General Warlimont, we have the same reasons which I just mentioned regarding Generaloberst Halder. General Warlimont is also present in Nuremberg and is at your disposal for examination in the court. Concerning the importance. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: What do you want to request now?

DR. NELTE: My application consists in the request to disallow the use of the document which the Soviet Prosecutor has just wished to read out loud, and to direct that the witness, Warlimont, now present in Nuremberg, be called as a witness.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has just ruled that the interrogation of General Halder may be used, but if it is used—and it is being used—he must be submitted for cross-examination by counsel for the defendants. What more do you want?

DR. NELTE: I am not speaking about Generaloberst Halder but about General Warlimont.

THE PRESIDENT: I thought we had already ruled upon General Warlimont; that he had to be called—that is, only yesterday or the day before.

DR. NELTE: I believe that this ruling has escaped the memory of the Soviet Prosecutor, otherwise he would not be reading this document out loud but would be introducing General Warlimont to the Court in person.

THE PRESIDENT: I think the ruling of the Tribunal was that the Prosecutor should be entitled to use the interrogation, but if he did so, he must submit the witness for cross-examination. Therefore, the Soviet Prosecutor is entitled to read the interrogation and General Warlimont will then be produced for the purpose of cross-examination.

DR. NELTE: Is he obliged to do this or may he use his own discretion?

THE PRESIDENT: I suppose he might use his own discretion and call the witness if he wanted to and not put in the interrogation.

You see, Dr. Nelte, the position of the Tribunal is this. If the prosecuting counsel chooses to call the witness and not to use the interrogation, of course, he calls the witness, examines the witness, and the witness is liable to cross-examination by Defense Counsel. If, on the other hand, the prosecuting counsel wishes to use the interrogation, which he already has, he can do so; but if the witness is available in or near Nuremberg, he must still be produced for cross-examination.

The discretion which Counsel for the Prosecution has is as to whether they use an interrogation which they already have or call the witness. But in either case, the witness, if he is here, must be produced for cross-examination.

DR. NELTE: The witnesses, Generaloberst Halder and General Warlimont, are both in Nuremberg and at our disposal. I merely wish to know whether the date when he is to be presented depends on the discretion of the Chief Prosecutor. We are interested in the possibility of holding the cross-examination when the Prosecution has read out the written statement.

THE PRESIDENT: I thought that was a matter you might settle with the prosecuting counsel as to whether you wish to cross-examine him directly after the interrogation has been presented or after a short delay. If I were to say that he is to be cross-examined immediately after the interrogation has been put in probably Defense Counsel would say he wanted time to consider the interrogation. But you can surely settle that with Colonel Pokrovsky.

DR. NELTE: Then I will deal with Colonel Pokrovsky on this matter. Thank you.

COL. POKROVSKY: I take the liberty of starting from the point where I broke off. We now present to the Tribunal Exhibit Number USSR-263(a), consisting of the minutes of the interrogation, under oath, of the witness, Warlimont, given to Lieutenant Colonel Hinkel of the American Army. I do not intend to read this document into the record in full. Warlimont, in many cases, repeats Halder. The important thing is that he confirms two facts in their entirety:

(1) That it was Hitler who conducted the meeting of which we were informed by Halder’s testimony. (2) That, even before the war, Hitler had issued a directive to shoot prisoners of war; pointing out that special units were to be created for this purpose and that the SD would follow the Army.

Warlimont further testified—I quote, and Your Honors will find the excerpt which I quote on Page 26:

“He”—that is Hitler—“further said that he did not expect the
officer corps to understand his orders, but he demanded that
they obey his orders unconditionally.”

We have some more testimonies, those of Lieutenant General of the German Army, Kurt von Österreich. He was the former Commander of the Prisoner of War Section of the Danzig Military District. He personally handed his testimonies to the representatives of the Red Army on 29 December 1945. His testimonies, registered as Exhibit Number USSR-151 (Document Number USSR-151), are contained in your document book. I shall read certain excerpts into the record:

“I began my work as Commander of the Prisoner of War Section at
the headquarters of Military District XX (Danzig) on 1 February
1941.

“Prior to that I was the commanding officer of the 207th
Infantry Division, located in France.

“It was towards March 1941 that I was summoned to Berlin to
attend a secret meeting at the headquarters of the OKW. This
conference was conducted by Lieutenant General Reinecke, then
Chief of Headquarters’ Prisoner of War Section.

“Over 20 chiefs of the district prisoner of war sections from
various regions attended this conference, as well as several
staff officers of the headquarters. I cannot, at present,
remember the names of these officers.

“General Reinecke told us, as a great secret, that a tentative
invasion of the Soviet territory had been planned for the
beginning of summer 1941 and that in this connection the OKW had
elaborated essential measures, including the preparation of
camps for Russian prisoners of war expected after the beginning
of operations on the Eastern front.”

I omit 3 paragraphs and shall go on to several details of greater importance:

“On this occasion he ordered us to construct open air camps
surrounded only by barbed wire in such cases where there would
be no time to construct roofed-in barracks for the Russian
prisoners.

“Moreover, Reinecke gave us instructions as to the treatment of
Russian prisoners of war, directing us to shoot without any
warning those prisoners who might attempt to escape.”

In my opinion, the next two long paragraphs can be omitted in order to save time.

“After some time”—I pass on to Page 28 of your document
book—“I received a directive from the headquarters of the OKW
confirming Reinecke’s instructions to shoot without any warning
all Russian prisoners attempting to escape. I do not now
remember who signed this directive.”

The witness further testifies how he was called, either towards the end of 1941 or the beginning of 1942 to a conference in Berlin of the military district chiefs on prisoner-of-war affairs. The conference was conducted by Major General Von Graevenitz. The question under discussion was what to do with those Russian prisoners of war who were unable to work as the result of wounds or exhaustion. I think it might be useful to quote a few lines. They are on Page 29 in your document book:

“On the proposal of General Von Graevenitz this question was
discussed by several officers present, including doctors, who
stated that such prisoners of war unable to work should be
concentrated in one place—either in camp or in hospital—and
killed by poisoning. As a result of this discussion General Von
Graevenitz ordered us to murder war prisoners incapable of work,
using for this purpose the camp medical personnel.”

The witness asserts that when he arrived on duty in the Ukraine in the summer of 1942, he learned there, as he says—you will find these two lines on Page 29, “A method of murdering Russian prisoners of war by poisoning is already adopted there.”

The witness quotes actual figures, actual facts connected with this crime. I think it important to note a reference to this fact quoted on the fourth page of the Russian text, third paragraph from the top, on Page 29 of your document book:

“When I was in the Ukraine I received from headquarters a
top-secret order signed by Himmler, directing that, as from
August 1942, Russian war prisoners must be branded with a
special mark.

“Russian war prisoners were kept in concentration camps under
severe conditions, were poorly fed, subjected to moral outrages,
and died of hunger and disease.”

Österreich names facts which confirm this testimony. The following episode is revealingly characteristic. I quote the second paragraph of the fifth page; it is on Page 31 in your document book:

“In the beginning of 1942 when an echelon of Russian war
prisoners was being moved from the Ukraine to the city of Torun,
approximately 75 people died there, the corpses of whom were not
taken away but left in the railway car together with the
living. . . . About 100 prisoners of war who could not bear
these conditions and tried to escape were shot.”

These and similar cases are known to the witness. He enumerates them, but I do not think it is necessary to cite all of them to the Tribunal. They are all alike.

THE PRESIDENT: Please, proceed.

COL. POKROVSKY: Thank you. I thought the members of the Tribunal were deliberating. I, therefore, interrupted my report. Thank you.

Österreich also speaks about directives which provide for the shooting of all political commissars of the Red Army, Communists, and Jews. Such an arrangement practically opened the way for the extermination of any Soviet prisoner of war under the pretext that he was suspected of belonging to the Communist Party or if he looked like a Jew.