Presiding Judge: No, Mr. Attorney General, do you have any
comments on these documents? I think that you, too, did not
have an opportunity to look at them until yesterday.
Attorney General: What I said yesterday was correct. The
telegram referred to there is the same telegram about which
Judge Raveh asked, and consequently the reply given was
quite correct, and I have nothing to add.
Presiding Judge: Letter or telegram?
Attorney General: Express letter.
Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, are there any further
Defence witnesses or documents which you wish to submit as
part of the case for the Defence?
Dr. Servatius: Yes, on the Veesenmayer statement I wish to
submit two more documents which were referred to in the
statement. The following documents were referred to during
the examination. I shall indicate them with the N or T
number. Document No. 675 is N/73. Then, document No. 871
is N/89, document No. 812 is T/1235, document No. 1021 is
T/1145, document No. 372 is N/71. Then, documents Nos. 797
and 666 are still missing. I submit these two documents now.
Presiding Judge: I mark document No. 666 of Bureau 06 as
Attorney General: I assume that, in order to submit document
No. 666, Counsel for the Defence requires a Decision under
Section 15 of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment)
Law. I do not object to such permission being given to
Counsel for the Defence, only that everything should be done
Presiding Judge: In that case, Dr. Servatius, you are asking
for such a Decision, are you not?
Dr. Servatius: If the Court deems it necessary, I would so
Presiding Judge: Is anything known about Mr. Geza Lakatos?
Is he alive, or is he dead?
Dr. Servatius: I cannot say anything about that.
Decision No. 97
We permit the submission of the sworn affidavit by Geza
Lakatos as an exhibit in these proceedings. The Attorney
General does not object, and as I have already said, the
statement is marked exhibit N/106.
Document No. 797 is marked exhibit N/107.
Dr. Servatius, I gather from the Clerk of Court that T/1235,
the document shown to Veesenmayer, was Bureau 06 document
No. 212 and not 812. The T number was correct, and you
erred apparently only in the Bureau 06 number.
Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, yesterday I submitted a sworn
affidavit by witness van Taalingen-Dols, the Dutch woman
lawyer. However, this did not include the pages referred to
from the Dutch text of the book, Der strijd om een mensen
leven. I have had the copies made here and now submit them
together with the book. This has already received an N
Presiding Judge: I mark these passages N/105(a); the book
itself was marked exhibit N/105.
Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, may I return again to the
appendices to Krumey’s statement on the Lidice children.
Presiding Judge: Yes.
Dr. Servatius: I have already said that I was only
contesting the first document, which appears as a copy – at
the top it says “Authenticated Copy,” and then in Polish it
says “Opis” (copy), and below it says, “…No special care
What is striking is the following: For every single document
there is a statement in writing authenticating completeness
and accuracy, and every time it says, as far as I can make
out the Polish here, “This photocopy is complete and
accurate,” and a typewritten page, and then for every sheet
there is a declaration to this effect by the Ministry…the
Ministry of Justice, the Polish Ministry of Justice.
Presiding Judge: No, I believe it is the Czech ministry, Dr.
Servatius, not the Polish one.
Dr. Servatius: Yes, I see that too – it comes from Prague.
Presiding Judge: Yes.
Dr. Servatius: I only looked at the language and
ascertained that it was a Slav language. So what is
striking is that, precisely in the case of this important
first document, there is no such statement of
authentication. Consequently I would ask for this document
not to be admitted in evidence, or to act accordingly.
Presiding Judge: Do you wish to comment, Mr. Attorney
Attorney General: First, as regards the translation: We have
always translated “Sonderbehandlung” as “special treatment.”
Here the words “besondere Fuersorge” appear, so that the
translation should be different, “special care.”
Judge Halevi: This distinction should have been made
already yesterday. This was not properly defined yesterday
in the translation.
Attorney General: Your Honour, this document was submitted
during Krumey’s examination, and any objection or comment
should have been made when the document was submitted to the
witness, to Krumey. The document now reached us as a part
of Krumey’s statement, and it is impossible to make comments
here, or to make objections which were not made there. The
proper place for such a comment as to the evidentiary weight
of the document is perhaps yet in the final submission. I
do not say that that would be out of place, but an
application to reject the document is no longer in order. I
am not aware of Counsel for the Defence – who was present at
Krumey’s examination – having made any such objection to
Presiding Judge: He could also have indicated such objection
with the request that the question be passed on to the Court
here for decision.
Attorney General: Yes, he could have done so, but he did not
in fact do so. As far as I know, Krumey was also not asked
to comment on that passage, so that I do not think that now
is the time and place for any comments in that regard.
Judge Raveh: Which passage is being referred to?
Attorney General: I understand that Counsel for the Defence
refers to the words, “eine besondere Fuersorge is nicht
erforderlich.” That appears in the document.
Judge Raveh: He reacts to that in his evidence on page 8.
Attorney General: That is not the point. He was not asked
there whether the document is genuine or not – that is the
problem. That is how I understand Counsel for the Defence.
Whether this passage was a later addition, whether the
document is a true copy or not – about that Krumey was not
Judge Raveh: Do you know who showed the document to the
Attorney General: That is what I asked my colleague, Mr.
Bach, to check. I can only say that, to the best of my
knowledge, this document was not available to my
representative when he examined Krumey, so that the document
cannot have come from us.
Presiding Judge: Anything else, Dr. Servatius?
Dr. Servatius: This document was not submitted by the
Defence. Presumably the witness himself had the document in
his possession. I do not know where else it could have come
from. I assume that it was produced because it says there
that the children were to be sent on via the Polish camps
there. This supports the case for the Defence, but the last
sentence, “No special care is required,” is to its
detriment. Apparently, it was then not known that all the
other documents were authenticated by special certification
of the ministry, while this document does not have this, and
presumably no one knew enough Czech to see that at the top
there it says “opis” again.
Presiding Judge: Perhaps someone can help us out here.
Opis, that means copy, does it not? In Polish it is “odpis”
is it not?
Attorney General: I do not know what it is in Czech.
Presiding Judge: It is something similar. Perhaps Dr.
Robinson can assist us here. There is another word, or
something, in the first line.
Dr. Robinson File number.
Attorney General: Dr. Tabor, who studied in Czechoslovakia,
also states that “opis” is Czech and means copy.
Decision No. 98
It is not clear by whom the document in question was shown
to witness Krumey. It is not impossible that it was
submitted by the witness Krumey himself. However, we do not
find that the representative of the Defence raised any
objection when this document was submitted. For this
reason, this document is admitted in evidence, without,
however, at this stage expressing any opinion on the
evidentiary weight of the document.
Dr. Servatius, do you have any further matters to raise?
Dr. Servatius: Yes. In his examination, the Accused
referred to various documents from Poliakov’s book, viz.
with regard to the question of special treatment he referred
to various matters. I submit these passages as evidence for
the record. This is from Poliakov (Red), pages 299-302. It
is from the book, The Third Reich and its Servants.
Presiding Judge: I mark this exhibit N/108.
Dr. Servatius: I also wished to submit material from volume
II of the German edition of the proceedings against the main
war criminals, namely Keitel’s statements about the
extermination of the Jews. On page 494 witness Lahousen is
being examined, and he states the following in reply to
questioning by Colonel Amann, the American prosecutor –
Presiding Judge: So is this Lahousen or Keitel?
Dr. Servatius: About Keitel. Lahousen is testifying about
what Keitel said to him in conference, what he heard.
Attorney General: I understand that if I find other passages
in this statement, I shall be entitled to refer to these
other passages. For the moment I am not familiar with any
of Lahousen’s statement, and therefore I do not know whether
all of the relevant passages are reproduced here.
Presiding Judge: In that case, Dr. Servatius, you will not
object to Lahousen’s statement being submitted in its
entirety, and you will draw our attention to those passages
which are of interest to you?
Dr. Servatius: I agree to that. However, I have only
photocopied these passages here, and I assume it will be
sufficient if I just give the other page numbers.
Presiding Judge: Yes, that is perfectly all right.
Dr. Servatius: Colonel Amann asks witness Lahousen:
“In order to ensure that the record can be understood
properly, which particular measures did Keitel say had
already been agreed upon?
“Lahousen: According to the presentation of the then
Chief of the Army Supreme Command, there had already
been agreement on the bombing of Warsaw, the shooting
of the ethnic categories and groups in Poland indicated
“Colonel Amann: Which were these?
“Lahousen: Yes, these were primarily the Polish
intelligentsia, nobility and clergy, and of course the
Jews.” That will suffice. I would also like to add the
“Colonel Amann: What, if anything, was said about
possible co-operation with a Ukrainian group?
“Lahousen: Yes, by the then Chief of the Army Supreme
Command who was passing on a directive which he had
evidently received from Ribbentrop, because he
announced it in conjunction with the political plan of
Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ribbentrop –
Canaris was instructed to create a movement of
insurrection in the Galician Ukraine, the purpose of
which was to exterminate the Jews and Poles.”
That is the end of my submissions.
Presiding Judge: [To the Clerk of Court, Mr. Bodenheimer]
The third volume as well, please.
I see that Lahousen’s statement in the Blue Series starts on
page 509, second volume and continues in the third volume –
I do not think it continues over to the fourth volume, but
it does continue to the third volume, so I mark this
testimony in its entirety N/109, and the passage submitted
by Dr. Servatius is marked N/109a. I gather from you then,
Dr. Servatius, that the Accused has no further Defence
witnesses or documents which he wishes to submit in his
Dr. Servatius: No, that concludes my case for the Defence.
Presiding Judge: Very well. I thank you, and that then
concludes the case for the Defence.
Attorney General: With the permission of the Court, first I
have two items of evidence which I cannot submit as
rebutting evidence, but I wish to notify the Court that they
are before me, and the reason why I am informing the Court
of this, is so that the Court can consider the position and
decide whether it wishes to exercise its power and admit
them as evidence for the Court.
I have an affidavit by a Dr. Rudolf Vrba, which was received
only yesterday, in conjunction with our document No. 4, and
which we tried to submit. This is the report about
Auschwitz which was drawn up already in 1944.
Presiding Judge: An affidavit by Dr. Vrba?
Attorney General: Yes, Dr. Vrba’s statement given on 18 July
1961 in London, which was received here only just now.
In this statement Dr. Vrba describes his duties in
Auschwitz; one of his duties was in the records department,
how the number of victims listed in document No. 4 was
arrived at – document No. 4 which we wished to submit and
which, as the Court will remember, was contested by the
Dr. Vrba describes here why the figure given by him is
correct. He indicates his method of calculation, and also
possible errors, not more than plus minus ten per cent, as
well as his calculation for the total number of victims at
Auschwitz, and arrives at a figure of two and a half
million. According to the rules of evidence, I could only
have submitted this document if it were something completely
unexpected and unknown to me. However, I am not claiming
that this is so, because I knew that Dr. Vrba was alive.
But I tried to submit the report in the same way that we
submitted the other documents on this subject. But when an
objection was made, I said, at the suggestion of one of the
judges, Dr. Raveh, that I would contact Dr. Vrba, and this
is now the result of my approach to Dr. Vrba. To the extent
that it is of interest to establish the figures – and I
believe that this is of interest – this document is a
valuable and important one; it explains one of the documents
which was submitted at Nuremberg, because the last pages of
document No. 4 were submitted as a document at the Nuremberg
Presiding Judge: Which document?
Attorney General: The two pages showing the calculations.
Presiding Judge: But these two pages are not now before the
Attorney General: No, but in this document there is a
precise description of them.
Presiding Judge: In this affidavit?