The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-05/tgmwc-05-46.03


Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-05/tgmwc-05-46.03
Last-Modified: 1999/10/05


THE PRESIDENT: I am just telling you that I rather think
this may be the document, if it begins with "1,357 English
prisoners of war... " Does it begin in that way?

M. DUBOST: The document which you have before you, Mr.
President, deals

                                                  [Page 278]


with the transfer of British prisoners of war. The one about
which I wished to speak and from which I wanted to read to
you deals with the transfer of French prisoners. I think
that it is not necessary for me to lengthen the proceedings
by showing the Tribunal that the British and the French
prisoners were treated in the same way. I shall, therefore,
restrict myself to your document.

   "1,357 British war prisoners of all ranks were marched
   out of Stalag 3 in three columns on 28 January, 1945,
   and were thereafter marched for distances varying from
   17 to 31 kilometres per day to Spremberg, where they
   were entrained for Luckenwalde. Food, water, medical
   supplies were more or less non-existent throughout the
   trip. At least three prisoners had to be left at
   Muskau." - on the bottom of page, three lines before the
   end:
   
   "On the 31st they covered the distance of thirty-one
   kilometres to Muskau. It is small wonder that at this
   stage three men, first lieutenants Kelly and Wise, and
   W.O Burton collapsed and had to be left in the hospital
   in Muskau."

Page 2, at the end of the document: "On the March," -the
last paragraph -

   "apart from the Red Cross parcels already referred to,
   the only rations issued were one loaf of bread and one
   issue of barley soup per man. The supply of water is
   described as 'haphazard.'

There were fifteen who escaped.

The camp conditions of the Franco-Belgian column were even
more rigorous. The camps were organised in a manner which
was contrary to all the rules of hygiene. The prisoners were
crammed into a very narrow space. They had no heating or
water. There were thirty to forty men in a room. (Boudot's
statement).

M. Boudot's statement is to be found in the report on
prisoners and deportees which was also handed to you the
other day by M. Herzog. I suppose that the Tribunal has kept
its documents of last Thursday -

THE PRESIDENT: We have kept these documents, but if we had
them on the Bench before us you would not be able to see us.

M. DUBOST: Similar statements are found in the Red Cross
report. Berger, who was in charge, under Himmler, from 1
October, 1944, of prisoner-of-war camps, has admitted, in
the course of his interrogation, that the food supply of
prisoners of war was entirely insufficient. The Tribunal
will find on Page 3 of the document book, which is before
it, an extract from Berger's interrogation. The original is
submitted as Exhibit RF 355.

   Second paragraph: "I visited a camp south of Berlin, the
   name of which I cannot remember at the moment. I shall
   perhaps remember later. At that time it was obvious to
   me that the food conditions were absolutely inadequate,
   and a violent argument between Himmler and myself arose.
   Himmler was violently opposed to continuing the
   distribution of Red Cross parcels in the prisoner-of-war
   camps at the same rate as before. As for me, I thought
   that in this case we should be faced with serious
   problems regarding the men's health."

We present Document 826-PS, as Exhibit RF 356. This document
was issued by the Fuehrer's Headquarters. This is a report
on a visit to Norway and Denmark. It is on Page 7 of your
document book. Paragraph 3:

   "All the prisoners of war in Norway receive an amount of
   food which enables them just to live without working.
   However, the cutting down of trees demands such hard
   work on the part of these prisoners of war that, if the
   food remains the same, a considerable lessening of
   production must soon be expected."

This note applies to the situation of the 82,000 prisoners
of war who were held in Norway, 30,000 of whom were employed
on very hard construction

                                                  [Page 279]

work which was being carried out by the Todt organisation.
This is found in the first paragraph of Page 7.

I now present to the Tribunal Document 820-PS, Page 9 in the
document book. It deals with the establishment of prisoner-
of-war camps in the regions exposed to aerial bombardment.
It was issued by Headquarters. It is dated 18.8.1943. It is
addressed by the Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force to the
Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht. We submit it as Exhibit
RF 358, and we shall read to the Tribunal paragraph 3:

   "The Chief of the General Staff of the Air Force,
   proposes to set up prisoner of war camps in the
   residential quarters of the cities in order to obtain a
   certain protection."

I omit a paragraph.

   "In view of the above considerations, there is a
   question of setting up such camps immediately in a large
   number of towns where there is danger of air attacks. As
   the discussions with the City of Frankfurt ... have
   shown, these towns will support and hasten the
   construction of the camps by all means at their
   disposal."

The last paragraph:

  "So far, there are in Germany about 8,000 prisoners-of-
  war who are British and American airmen (without counting
  those in hospital). By evacuating the camps actually in
  existence, which might be used to house bombed-out
  people, we should immediately have at our disposal
  prisoners of war for a fairly large number of such
  camps."

This refers to the camps set up in bombed areas and areas
which were particularly exposed.

On Page 10 the Tribunal will find a document issued by the
Fuehrer's Headquarters, dated 3-9-1943, still dealing with
the establishment of these new prisoner of war camps for
British and American airmen. We submit this document as
Exhibit RF 359.

  "(1) The Chief of the General Staff of the Air Force, is
  planning the establishment of other camps for Air Force
  prisoners, for these are coming in at the rate of more
  than 1,000 per month, and the space provided at the
  moment is becoming insufficient. The C in C Air Force
  proposes the establishment of these camps within
  residential quarters of the towns - as this will
  constitute at the same time a protection for the
  populations - and to transfer all the existing camps,
  where there are about 8,000 British and American Air
  Force prisoners, into larger towns threatened by enemy
  aircraft.
  
  (2) The Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht, Chief of War
  Prisoners Department has approved this project in
  principle."

Page 12 of the document book which the Tribunal has before
it, is Document F-551, which we shall submit as Exhibit RF
360. It deals with the condemnation of prisoners of war in
violation of Article 60 and the following articles of the
Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention provides that the
protecting power shall be advised of judicial prosecutions
that are made against prisoners of war, and will have the
right to be represented at the trial.

THE PRESIDENT: Where are you? We are on Page 12 but we have
lost the place.

M. DUBOST: In the middle of Page 12 - the practical
application of Articles 60-66. I am now about to read, or
rather, I am commenting on this order.

I have explained to the Tribunal that Article 60 and the
following articles of the Geneva Convention provide that the
protecting power shall be advised of judicial prosecutions
against war prisoners. The document which we submit as
Exhibit RF 360 shows that these provisions were violated. We
read on the first line

                                                  [Page 280]

  "In practice, the application of Articles 60 and 66,
  particularly paragraph 2 of Article 66, of the Convention
  of 1929, concerning the treatment or prisoners of war,
  meets with serious difficulties. For the application of a
  severe penal jurisdiction it is intolerable that actually
  for the most serious offences - as for instance,
  attacking the guards - the death sentence cannot be
  executed until three months after its notification to the
  protecting power. The discipline of prisoners of war is
  bound to suffer from this."

I pass over the rest of the paragraph. (Page 12.)

  "The following regulation is proposed: (a) The French
  should be made to feel confident that the trials of
  prisoners of war in German hands, will, as formerly, be
  carried out thoroughly and conscientiously. (b) Germany
  will designate a defence counsel and an interpreter. (c)
  In the case of a death sentence" (bottom of page 12) "a
  certain period of time shall elapse after notification
  has been be given to this effect."

On top of Page 13

  "In this respect Germany must in any case reserve the
  right, even if this is not explicitly stipulated, to
  carry out the sentence immediately in periods of
  crises...."

Third paragraph:

  "There is no question of authorising France, who might
  perhaps refer to Article 62, paragraph 3 (P.O.W.) of the
  Geneva Convention, to send a representative to the
  sessions of the German Military Tribunals."

We possess an example of the violation of Article 60 and
those following of the Geneva Convention in the report of
the Netherlands Government, which the Tribunal will find on
Page 14 of the document book.

THE PRESIDENT: I think we better break off now.

(A recess was taken until 1400 hours)

MARSHAL OF THE COURT: May it please the Court, I desire to
announce that the defendants Kaltenbrunner and Seyss-Inquart
will be absent from this afternoon's session due to illness.

THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make.

When the attention of the Tribunal was called by the
defendant Hess to the absence of his counsel, the Tribunal
directed that the presentation of the individual case
against Hess be postponed, so that counsel could be present
when it was presented. So far as the cross-examination of
witnesses who testified to matters affecting the general
case and not against Hess specifically is concerned, it is
the view of the Tribunal that the cross-examination
conducted by counsel representing the defendants equally
interested with Hess in this feature of the case, was
sufficient to protect his interests, and the witnesses will
therefore not be recalled.

The Tribunal has received a letter from the defendant Hess
dated 30 of January, 1946, to the effect that he is
dissatisfied with the services of counsel who has been
appearing for him, and does not wish to be represented by
him further, but wishes to represent himself.

The Tribunal is of the opinion that, having elected, in
conformity with Article 16 of the Charter, to be represented
by counsel, the defendant Hess ought not to be allowed at
this stage of the Trial to dispense with the services of
counsel and defend himself. The matter is of importance to
the Tribunal, as well as to the defendant, and the Tribunal
is of the opinion that it is not in the interests of the
defendant that he should be unrepresented by counsel.

The Tribunal has therefore appointed Dr. Stahmer to
represent the defendant Hess, in place of Dr. Rohrscheidt.

Yes, M. Dubost.

                                                  [Page 281]

M. DUBOST: I beg the Tribunal to excuse me; I was completing
the work which they had requested me to do in relation to
concentration camps. I shall present to the Tribunal in a
few moments, when I have completed the presentation of the
question of prisoners of war, the end of the French
presentation concerning concentration camps, which consists
of very few matters; for we shall only have a few documents
to cite since, subject to such counter-evidence as the
defence may bring, the systematic repetition of the same
methods seems, so far, sufficiently established.

We were at the point of reading a document of the Dutch
Government, which has already been presented to the Tribunal
under the number 324, and which establishes that a protest
was lodged, following the execution and the secret
condemnation to death of three officers: Lieutenants H. J.
B. Ten Bosch, Braat and Thibo.

I think that the document to which I alluded this morning,
which is the official report of the French Government
concerning prisoners, is now in the hands of the Tribunal.
It is the document submitted by M. Herzog under the number
46.

I ask the Tribunal to excuse me, as I cannot present this
document again. I have no more copies.

It is evident from this document that the Nazis had a
systematic policy of intimidation. They strove to keep the
greatest possible number of prisoners of war in order to be
able, if necessary, to exercise effective pressure on the
countries from which these prisoners came. This policy was
exercised by the illegal capture of prisoners, and also by
the refusal, which was systematically upheld, to repatriate
the prisoners whose state of health would have justified
this measure.

Concerning the illegal capture of prisoners of war, we can
cite the example of French prisoners.

The report of the Ministry of Prisoners of War and
Deportees, to which we refer, indicates, on Page 4, that in
1940 certain French military formations laid down their arms
at the time of the armistice, under an assurance given by
the German Army that troops who had thus surrendered would
not be taken into captivity. These troops were,
nevertheless, captured. The Alpine Army had crossed the
Rhone in order to be demobilised, and was West of the region
of Vienne. They were taken prisoner and were sent to Germany
until the end of July, 1940.

Moreover, non-combatant formations of special civilians were
led into captivity and imprisoned in accordance with
Himmler's orders, which directed that all Frenchmen of
military age were to be seized indiscriminately. In short,
it was only through special reports, and the private
initiative of Unit Commanders, that not all Frenchmen were
transferred to Germany.

Because of the enormous number of prisoners, and the
difficulties that faced the German Army in taking all those
men to Germany, the German Army decided, in 1940, to create
what they called 'Front Stalags.'

The promise had been made to the de facto French Government,
which was established after the armistice, that soldiers who
were kept in these "Front Stalags" would be kept in France.
Yet they began to be sent to Germany in October 1940.

In an additional report appended to the document book which
is before you, the Ministry of Prisoners of War and
Deportees points out the irregular capture of the troops of
the fortified sector of Haguenau, the 22nd RIF, the 81st
BCF, the 51st and 58th Infantry Regiments and a North
African division. It is Document 668-F, Exhibit RF 361, the
pages of which are not numbered. It is appended to the
document book. I quote the document:

   "Troops of the fortified sector of Haguenau - the 22nd
   RIF and the 81st BCF - fought until 25 June, 1.30, and
   only ceased firing

                                                  [Page 282]

   after an agreement between the Colonel in charge of the
   sector and the German Generals, an agreement which
   guaranteed the troops the honours of war, and notably
   that they would not be made prisoners. The 51st and 58th
   Infantry Divisions, as well as a North African Division,
   withdrew towards Toul only after an agreement, signed on
   22 June, between the French General Dubuisson and the
   German General Andreas, at Thuille aux Groseilles,
   (Meurthe et Moselle); an agreement guaranteeing military
   honours and confirming that the troops would not be
   imprisoned."

THE PRESIDENT: What official document does this document
come from?

M. DUBOST: From the Ministry of Prisoners of War and
Deportees. It is an additional report which was made by the
French Government.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you got any number for that report?

M. DUBOST: The French number is 668-F. A copy of the
document is included in the file which is appended to the
document book submitted to the Tribunal this morning. We
submit it under the number -

THE PRESIDENT: Have you got the report on the captivity?

M. DUBOST: This report will be submitted to you, Mr.
President.

THE PRESIDENT: It appears to be Appendix No. 2 to the report
on the captivity, for the attention of the French Delegation
to the Court of Justice at Nuremberg.

M. DUBOST: That is correct, sir. The information which I
have just read to the Tribunal consists of extracts from a
note from Darlan to Ambassador Scapini on 22 April, 1941.

THE PRESIDENT: But M. Dubost, is there anything to show that
it is an official document, such as this book?

M. DUBOST: This document, Mr. President, bears no relation
to the one which I am quoting.

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

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

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

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