It was not reported to me that there were such regular Tuesday conferences, because I would have received such a report; I would have seen it.
QYou agree, however, that these Tuesday meetings were extremely useful for the interests of your organization. As a matter of fact, in those meetings there were discussed and finally decided various actions; collective actions, which had to be taken against the Jews, that is to say, arrests and deportations and police raids. Didn't it therefore seem completely logical and natural for your organization that it should have been regularly informed of these actions in order that it might be able to draw the economic consequences of such seizures of property.
ANo, in my opinion that is not logical at all, because if the chief of police concerned sent such secret transports into the camps as was said here, then it does not follow that every Tuesday in conference with many other gentlemen he would report about that. Neither do I believe that this chief of police informed the representatives of the Foreign Office about these things in detail.
QYou are, perhaps badly informed on this points, but I would like to read again the passage of the report which says the following;
"The conference had as a result that complete alignment of Jewish policy could be"-
THEPRESIDENT: (Interposing): The witness has said, has he not, that he doesn't know anything about these Tuesday meetings, he received no reports of them?
M.MONNERAY:Yes, Mr.President.
THE PRESIDENT:Then why are you asking about them?
M. MONNERAY:This document establishes the fact that the services in Paris worked actively in the terrorist policy of the police and benefitted by it.
THE PRESIDENT:You haven't been able to connect him with these reports, with the document. He has not signed the document. Nothing shows on the document that he received it, at least I suppose not, or you would have put it to him. He says he didn't know the document.
M.MONNERAY:Allow me, Mr.President, to ask, in that case, one question, which is to know whether he contests the reality of the indications concerning the representation of his Paris organization at this meeting. BY M. MONNERAY:
QDo you contest his presence at this meeting?
AI cannot give any information about that because I have not received any report.
QI would like to conclude this questioning by reminding you of a document which has already been produced, quoted, and discussed, that is, PS-001. In that document, the accused in the first paragraph proposes the transport of all seized furniture to the East, and in paragraph 2 he suggests to Hitler that there should be shot as hostages some French Jews instead of other Frenchmen.
Considering, as a result of the questions and answers, that the services of the accused could benefit by measures of execution and deportation, it seems that the real motive of this document is very clear It is necessary -- isn't that your opinion, Accused -- first to get rid of the people, in order to be able afterwards to seize their valuables?
ANo, that is not true.
M. MONNERAY:I have no more questions to ask, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT:Do you want to ask anything of the witness, Dr. Thoma?
DR. THOMA:Mr. President, may I quite briefly ask the defendant whether he wants me to ask him another question?
THE WITNESS:No.
DR.THOMA:Thank you. The defendant does not want any more questions.
Then, with the permission of the Court, I should like to call witness Riecke.
THE PRESIDENT:Will he be long or not?
DR. THOMA:I believe half an hour at most.
THE PRESIDENT:All right. Well then, the defendant may retire.
HANS JOACHIM RIECKE, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY THE PRESIDENT:
QWhat is your name?
AHans Joachim Riecke.
QWill you repeat this oath after me?
I swear by God, the almighty and omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT:You may sit down.
Dr. Thoma, will you spell the name please?
DR. THOMA:R-i-e-c-k-e. BY DR. THOMA:
QWitness, what position did you have in the Economic Staff East and in the Foreign Ministry?
AIn both cases, upon orders from Goering, I was in charge of Group Nutrition and Agriculture.
QWhat was the task of these offices?
AThe main task of these offices was the reconstruction of Russian agriculture, which had been damaged by the war. The second task was the utilization of the surplus areas of the South for the armed forces and for nutrition purposes.
QWhat offices had been established in these areas?
ANext to the Foreign Ministry there existed a number of special task forces: a special task force Goering for economy, Himmler for police, and Sauckel for manpower.
QWho was agriculture under?
AAgriculture, just as was the entire economy, was under Goering. He gave directives immediately, or through State Secretaries Koerner and Backe.
QWas the quota for agriculture higher than under the Soviet Government? That is, the quota of deliveries.
AThe quota, of deliveries was adjusted to the former Russian quotas. In fact, during the first year, the delivery quota was lower than it had been during the Russian era. In the next year, as far as crops were concerned, it was lower; as far as livestock was concerned, higher.
Q Were the actual deliveries according to Goering's directives?
ANo, Goering had essentially higher expectancies.
QDid Germany ship agricultural machinery, scythes, sickles, and so on, into the Eastern Territories, and in what quantities?
AA large agricultural program, under the name of East Acreage Program -- Ost Acker Program -- was established in Germany. The intention was -- and it was actually carried out -- to send large amounts of agricultural machinery to the East.
The reason for that was the large-scale destruction of agricultural machinery by the Russians.
QOn the 5th of February, 1942, an agricultural decree was issued. What were the reasons for that?
AThe main purpose of that agricultural decree was to get the population to cooperate voluntarily. First it was intended to maintain a collective economy. That proved to be impossible because, as has been mentioned, a large amount of machinery was no longer available, such as tractors. On the other hand, it was not possible, the way thepopulation wanted it, in part, to resort to individual farming because smaller machinery was also missing. Therefore, a compromise was made of cooperatives, where the Russian peasants got a share of the land but they had to contribute part of their work within the community.
QWhat was the result?
AThe consequence of that new agricultural order was generally favorable. The extent of the planting increased. A good example of the consequences is that conditions in the so-called Kharkov Basin improved, because in the spring of 1942 the agriculture industry which had been changed into cooperatives had already achieved more than 70 percent of the spring planting, whereas the others only achieved about 30 percent.
QOn the 3rd of June, 1943 the so-called property declaration was issued. What were the basic principles of that?
AThe basic purpose of that property declaration was to turn over the shares into the property of the individual Russian peasants.
QSpeaking about the vegetable supply of large cities, how was that handled in the Ukraine?
A- Around the large cities, land was turned over to individual owners.
QNow some questions about Latvia.
Did the German Administration confiscate the land of Latvian peasants?
ANo; quite to the contrary. The socialization which the Russians had established during their occupation was waived, and the land was returned to thepeasants.
To say it in one sentence, the conditions existing before the Russian occupation were reverted to.
COLONEL POKROVSKY:I beg to be excused, but I cannot understand, with the best of wishes, what all these questions, even in the remotest way, have to do with the affair of the defendant Rosenberg. It seems to me that further questions of the defense counsel, if they are along these same lines, should not be allowed.
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Thoma, you ought not to show that what the witness is testifying about is connected in some way with the defendant Rosenberg?
DR. THOMA:With this question I wanted to,,first, refute the Soviet assertion that that country, after occupation, was returned to the Baltic Barons. I want to point out document USSR 4957, which I submitted yesterday. Secondly, I wantto prove that that area had been administered in an orderly way and in such a manner that the population cooperated voluntarily. Thirdly, I want to prove that during the entire German occupation not one Ukrainian or not one citizen of the Soviet Union had starved, because the agricultural program was successful.
I can only prove that by the statements of an expert. I have only a few more questions, and I think I will be through with that subject very shortly.
THE PRESIDENT:Go on, Dr. Thoma. BY DR. THOMA:
Q.Did the German Adm inistration in Latvia confiscate the land of the Latvian peasants?
A.I have answered that question already. On the contrary, socialization was revoked and the land was returned to the Latvian peasants. In other words, conditions were such as they had existed before the Russian occupation.
Q.Were former large, German estates reinstated?
A.No. On the contrary, Latvian peasants' property -- which, after 1919 was created at the expense of large German estates -- was left in their hands.
Q.What were the ideas behind the so-called reprivatization?
A.That reprivatization should give to the Latvian peasants the right to run their own property.
Q.Did that also concern Estonia and Lithuania?
A.The law, in a similar manner, concerned also Lithuania and Estonia.
Q.Do you know about a statement of Darre's that the local peasants should have their small properties transferred and proletarized?
A.I do not remember any such statement.
Q.Do you know about the Society for the Administration of the Eastern Area -- the Geschschaft fuer die Bewirtschaftung des Ostlandes?
A.There were two societies by that name, and I assume that the one you are referring to was the one founded in order to take care of the stateowned property in the East Baltic provinces. In all Russian territories of the so-called Reich Commissariat Eastland, the MTS also took care of these areas.
Q.What was the attitude of Rosenberg toward the various measures of recruitment of supply, such as foodstuffs, etc.?
A.Rosenberg could not do anything against the orders of the Fuehrer. He had always insisted that these measures be carried out without force against the population.
Q Who took care of the ostland workers in the Reich?
ATo my knowledge the labor offices.
QHow were the east workers quartered in the Reich? Did you know anything about it?
AThe supplying and the quartering of the east workers in the Reich were satisfactory, and I received the reports by the Reich nutritional offices.
QCan you tell us something about Rosenberg's general attitude toward the eastern people?
AAs I have said before, Rosenberg personally wanted to get the eastern people to cooperate, especially in the direction of guaranteeing their cultural life.
Rosenberg, as much as I know, always intervened for re opening of the colleges and special schools.
QDid Rosenberg have to fight any limitations on that subject?
AAgainst these intentions of Rosenberg there were strong forces in the field, especially in the Fuehrer's headquarters, in the persons of Bormann and Himmler, whose attitude was much supported by Reich Commissar Koch, who himself in his work against Rosenberg was supported by Bormann and Himmler.
That led to the fact that a large number of measures which Rosenberg had planned, especially in the Ukraine, were sabotaged by Koch.
QOnly one last question: Did you know about the concentration camps and about the treatment of the inmates in protective custody?
AThe existence of concentration camps, of course, was known to me;
about the number of concentration camps and what happened in them, not. During the years of 1933 and 1934 various reports were made about individual mis treatments.
Later, persons who visited concentration camps turned in definitely positive reports.
In the last days of April of last year, near Berlin, I met inmates of concentration camps marching back.
Conditions were so terrible that I immediately saw Himmler and asked him not to let these people go on marching but to turn them over to the enemy.
That conference took place in the presence of Field Marshal Keitel.
But the answer was a very indefinite one.
That is all that I can say about this matter.
QThere is one more question that just came to my mind. In the occupied eastern territories, outside of the nutritional problem of the armed forces, was it also taken into consideration to get foodstuffs for the German people?
AAbout two thirds of the deliveries of foodstuffs from the eastern territories was for the armed forces immediately.
The remaining third was shipped to Germany, and we always considered it an equivalent for the nutrition of the foreign workers, whose number was mounting continuously.
DR. THOMA:Thank you. I have no more questions.
THE PRESIDENT:Do any of the Defendants Counsel wish to ask any questions?
DR. SEIDL:Dr. Seidl, Counsel for Dr. Frank.
BY DR. SEIDL:
QWitness, you were also state secretary in the Reich ministry for nutrition and agriculture, is that correct?
AYes.
QIs it correct that the chief of the main department for nutrition and agriculture in the General Government was frequently in Berlin in order to discuss there the quotas, in order to achieve a measure which would be supported by the population?
AAs much as I remember, during the negotiations which took place with the General Government he variously expressed that opinion.
QAccording to your own observations, what was the nutritional situa tion of the population of the General Government?
AAccording to my own observations and the reports which I received, the rations which had been established were lower than in the Reich, but black market and the open market produced equivalent -
QIs it correct that efforts were made to increase agricultural pro duction by the General Government?
AConsiderable efforts were made, and one can safely say that the entire economy, as much as it was not used for armament, was working for nutrition.
Besides, fertilizer was shipped from the Reich; also agricultural machinery,
QWhat part did delivery from occupied countries have in the entire requirement of foodstuffs for Germany?
AAccording to the calculations which were made by our ministry, the part of the deliveries from occupied territories in the total food requirement of Germany in 1942 and 1943 amounted to about 15 percent; during the other years around 10 percent.
Q Now one last question: The Soviet Prosecution has submitted a document -- USSR 170.
It deals with a meeting with the chiefs of the German offices in occupied territories on 6/8/42, under the chairmanship of the Reichmarshal. I present to you this document (document is handed to witness) and want you to tell me whether the description given in that document characterizes the relation between Germany and the occupied territories correctly. You were present at that meeting, were you not?
AThe document represents the minutes of the meeting, in which I took part. First I have to say that the document -- that is to say, the minutes -- contains the speech of the Reichmarshal, and the actual relations are not correctly described between Germany and the occupied territories. The demands which Goering made in this meeting were so high that they could not be taken seriously. In the department of nutrition it was clear to us that by force we could not achieve anything in the long run. The extra demands which Goering had made in that meeting were never fulfilled. I also believe that Goering himself did not believe that these quotas could be filled. As much as I know, these extra demands to France by Goering were never submitted; Belgium, in spite of a prohibition, received foodstuffs; so did Czechoslovakia.
On the day before that meeting there had been a conference by the gauleiters, and as much as I remember they were all under the impression of the increasing difficulties for the population in the west. The western gauleiters were of the opinion that German nutrition would become insufficient, but that a large part of the occupied territories were still having some surplus, that is to say, that the ministry of nutrition did not demand enough from the occupied territories. These demands were seized upon by Goering, and according to his temperament that led to the strong exaggerations contained in this document of the minutes.
DR. SEIDL:I have no more questions.
DR. SERVATIUS:Dr. Servatius, Counsel for the Defendant Sauckel.
BY DR. SERVATIUS:
QWitness, what was the condition of nutrition of foreign workers in Germany?
AAll groups of foreign workers, with the exception of the eastern workers, received the same rations as the German population.
QAnd what about the eastern workers?
AThe eastern workers received, in certain areas, lower; in certain others, higher rations. As much as I remember about bread and potatoes -
QWas it so that the state of health of the workers was endangered?
AThat question cannot be answered definitely. It must be considered in connection with the kind of work that these people were doing. Normally these rations were sufficient.
QDid Sauckel intervene for better nutrition of these workers
AAs much as I know, Sauckel has spoken several times to my minister concerning better supply of food, and minister Backe always answered with the demand that he should not bring any more workers to Germany. Backe has repeatedly suggested to reduce the number of workers and to supply them better with food.
DR. SERVATIUS:I have no more questions.
DR. STEINBAUER: Dr. Steinbauer, for the defendant Seyss-
Inquart. BY DR. STEINBAUER:
QWitness, in your capacity as State Secretary for Agriculture didn't you come to Holland also at the end of 1944 or the beginning of 1945?
AYes. At that time I was in the Netherlands.
QWas it not so, that there, on that occasion, the armed forces and the police had serious complaints about Dutch agriculture, especially about the responsible officials in Holland?
AI cannot remember a conversation of that kind.
QDo you know that the defendant Seyss-Inquart intervened for the reduction of food from Holland to Germany?
AYes, also in that meeting, which this document describes.
QAnd that especially in spite of complaints, he left the Dutch officials in the Nutrition Department?
AYes, that is the case.
DR. STEINBAUER:That is all.
DR. FLAECHSNER:Flaechsner for the defendant Speer. May I put several questions to the witness. BY DR. FLAECHSNER:
QWitness, could you give me information about the following questions? The workers, the inmates of concentration camps, working in the armament industry, did they get the same rations and additional rations for heavy work, such as the heavy workers?
ADuring the time, the period when he was concerned with these questions, all inmates, that is, also concentration camp inmates, got the same rations if they were working; therefore, they should have received the same rations.
QThe defendant Speer, or the ministry under his direction, were they competent for the establishment of rations in these industries, provided that the industries were supposed to acquire the rations?
A No, the ministry was not competent. As far as supply was concerned, the nutrition officers were competent.
As far as distribution was concerned, the people in charge of the camps or in charge of the industries.
QAnd one further question. What measures had Speer taken in order to prevent a general catastrophe, a nutritional catastrophe, which would also have affected the foreign workers in Germany. Can you tell me something about that?
ABeginning with December 1944, Speer put the tasks of armament behind the problem of nutrition -- very definitely so, with the thought of transferring that problem to a new power, power of occupation. Speer saw to it that seed for the spring could be brought with his means of transportation. Speer strongly intervened for the reconstruction of the food industry which had been damaged by air attack, and first of all, during that last phase, Speer, together with others, prevented the non-sensical destruction of food industries against directives received by Hitler. The latter, he did without concern of consequences to his person.
DR. FLAECHSNER:Thank you.
DR. LATERNSER:Dr. Laternser, counsel for the General Staff and the OKW. BY DR. LATERNSER:
QWitness, did you participate in the world war?
AYes.
QIn what position?
AAs commander of a battalion.
QDuring the Western Campaign, did you receive any dubious order, I mean to say orders which were in violation of international law?
ANo, I have not received any such orders.
Q Could you determine or have you determined that by higher military officials, looting was tolerated?
ANo. On the contrary, in the case of looting, strong measures were taken.
QLater, you were in the East also, but as I have heard, not as a soldier.
Could you observe there, things concerning operations?
AYes.
QWhat was the treatment of the local population there by German soldiers?
AIn general, I can say that especially in the Ukraine, the treatment of the civilian population in the operational area was better; one took more consideration of the necessities than in the part under civilian administration.
QAnd what do you think is the reason for that difference?
AThe reason may be another attitude, a different attitude of the soldier, who was free of political tendencies and also that, of course, they wanted to have peace and quiet behind their back.
DR. LATERNSER:Thank you, I have no more questions.
THE PRESIDENT:Will the Prosecution want to cross examine?
MR. DODD:I can be through in two minutes, if your Honor please.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. DODD:
QWere you a member of the Nazi Party?
AYes.
QYes?
AYes.
QWhen did you join?
A 1925.
Q 1925?
AYes.
QYou were also a member of the SA?
AYes.
QWhat rank did you hold in the SA?
AFinally I became Gruppenfuehrer of the SA.
Q Previously, you were an SA Sturmfuehrer, weren't you?
AIn 1930, yes.
QWhen did you become an SS Gruppenfuehrer?
AIn October 1944.
MR. DODD:That is all, I have no other questions.
THE PRESIDENT:Have you any questions to ask in re-examination?
DR. THOMA:No.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, that concludes your case in behalf of the defendant Rosenberg, does it not?
DR. THOMA:Mr. President, I would like to state that the document R-091, which General Rudenke referred to before, that I have not submitted that as an exhibit. General Rudenke has referred to R-091. I have not submitted it, I do not submit it, and I want to withdraw it. Secondly, Mr. President, may I say that a number of affidavits still have not come, which have been approved, but which have not been received yet from abroad,
THE PRESIDENT:You can mention them later, of course.
DR. THOMA:Thirdly, I should like to put the request that my document book No. 1, so it may not be accepted in evidence, should be left in the same-that I should consider it for the purpose of argument as probative -- such as, I was informed by the decision of the 18th of March 1946, that is to say, not in evidence, not as a matter of proof, but just as argument. I assume that that had been approved previously and that only and that it is only rejected.
G ENERAL RAGINSKY: I should like to give a short explanation. The document under Exhibit R-19, which represents a letter which Riecke addressed to Rosenberg, dated 13 March 1945, was submitted by the defense counsel, Dr. Thoma, and you can find it in the second book of documents on page 42.
It was translated into all four languages and is in possession of all the prosecutors and the Tribunal, in its decision, accepted this document from the defense counsel.
THE PRESIDENT:G eneral Raginsky, the position is this, that a document doesn't go into evidence unless it is offered in evidence. Dr. Thoma has not offered this document in evidence and I understand that the Soviet prosecution has not offered it in evidence. If you want to offer it in evidence and the document is an authentic document, which I suppose it is, you can offer it in evidence.
GENERAL RAGINSKY:Yes. We didn't offer it as evidence, only because of the fact that it is already contained in the book of documents; therefore, we didn't have the necessity to present it.
THE PRESIDENT:You see, documents don't go into evidence unless they are offered in evidence. The fact that they are in the books, doesn't mean that they are in evidence; therefore, if you want to offer it in evidence, you must do so.
G ENERAL RAGINSKY:Yes, Mr. President, we are going to offer it in evidence now.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well; you will give it a USSR number.
GENERAL RAGINSKY:Yes, we are going to give it a USSR exhibit number. and will offer it in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well.
G ENERAL RAGINSKY:Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT:Now, we will proceed to deal with the supplementary applications.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: If your Lordship pleases, the first application is that of Dr. Seidl's with regard to two witnesses; first of all witness Hilger, who was previously granted as a witness for the defendant von Ribben trop but withdrawn by counsel on the 2nd of April.
I believe that the witness is in the United States and that there is a report that he is too ill to travel.
But apart from that, my Lord, the purpose of the witness is to give evidence as to discussions and treaty negotiations which took place in the Krem lin at Moscow before the German-Soviet agreement of the 23rd of August, 1939, and the allegation states the conclusion of the alleged secret agreement dealt with in the affidavit of the witness Gauss.
My Lord, the other application is for a witness von Weizacker, who is going to deal with the same point.
The Prosecution, of course, loyally accepts the decision of the Tribunal on the admissibility of the Gauss affidavit but I respectfully submit that that does not affect this point.
What is desired is to call witnesses as to the course of the negotiations before these treaties, before an agreement was arrived at in respect to these treaties and that is a point which we have had several times and, of course, while all circumstances have a slight difference, the Tribunal have, as far as I know, ruled universally up to now that they will not go into antecedent negotiations which have resulted in agreements.
There is also the position that, of course, Dr. Seidl has put in the Gauss affidavit and he has had his opportunity to examine the defendant von Ribbentrop and the Prosecution respectfully submit that to call two secondary witnesses, without any disrespect to their position in the German Foreign Office, they are witnesses of a secondary importance compared with the defendant von Ribbentrop, to discuss these negotiations seems to the Prosecution to be going into irrelevant matter and entirely unnecessary for the purposes of this case.
I confess I do not myself appreciate any special relevance that these witnesses could have to the case of Hess but I do not put it so strongly on that ground.
I put it on the ground which I have just outlined to the Tribunal.
With regard to the third application of Dr. Seidl, I am not quite sure whether he means that he wants the Prosecution to provide him with an original or certified copy of the secret agreement or whether he desires to tender a copy himself.