 |
G. AFFIDAVITS AND TESTIMONIES OF
DEFENSE
WITNESSES |
| |
1. AFFIDAVIT OF OTTO KIRSCHNER, SECTION CHIEF IN
DEFENDANT
KRAUCH’S OFFICE |
| |
| |
TRANSLATION OF
DOCUMENT KRAUCH 144
KRAUCH DEFENSE EXHIBIT
198 |
| |
AFFIDAVIT OF LT. COLONEL OTTO KIRSCHNER,
13 MARCH 1948
|
| |
| Affidavit |
| |
I, Otto Kirschner, at present a resident of Ludwigsburg
Aspergerstrasse 48, have been warned that I render myself liable to punishment
in the case of a false affidavit. I declare in lieu of oath that my statement
is true and that it is made in order to be submitted as evidence to the
Military Tribunal in the Palace of Justice, Nuernberg.
1. From 1939 to
1945,1 was a section chief in the office of the Plenipotentiary General for
Special Questions of Chemical Production (Gebechemie).
2. I have been
shown Prosecution Exhibit 473, Document
EC-489.* My letter to General
Thomas, dated 20 October 1941, concerning the employment of Russian prisoners
of war was caused by the reasons set out below:
It was intended to
construct another fuel plant in Bruex. When handling this project, I found out
that it was particularly difficult at that time to find a solution for the
manpower problem involved in this construction. For this reason, I formed the
idea to discuss with Prof. Krauch whether Russian prisoners of war should be
employed on this project, and to submit this idea to General Thomas as well.
Among other considerations, my main consideration was the fact that in
the fall of 1941 millions of Russian prisoners of war were living in German
camps in difficult conditions; in consequence, both Prof. Krauch and I
considered it much more suitable and much more humane to provide these
prisoners with work and at the same time with better accommodations, better
rations, et cetera.
By the term “armaments industry,” used in
my letter. I did not mean the term armaments industry as defined in
international law; in this connection, it should be noted that I am not a
lawyer. Actually, I was only directed by the points of view of Gebechemi, and I
had only a construction site in mind; this was stated more explicitly in the
memorandum submitted at that time. A construction site did not come under the
term “armaments industry” in the meaning |
__________
* Reproduced above in
subsection D.
806 |
. 
