 |
| of international law, in accordance with the fact that it was not
managed by the armament commands of the Wehrmacht, which dealt with armament
plants, but by the departments of the Reich Ministry of Economy, which dealt
with plants essential for war economy and normal economy. |
| |
| Ludwigsburg, 13 March 1948 |
[Signed] OTTO KIRSCHNER |
| |
| |
2. AFFIDAVIT OF GENERAL RUDOLF HUENERMANN, OFFICIAL
IN THE
MILITARY ECONOMY AND ARMAMENTS OFFICE OF
THE HIGH COMMAND |
| |
| |
TRANSLATION OF
DOCUMENT KRAUCH 148
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT
197 |
| |
AFFIDAVIT OF (GENERAL] RUDOLF HUENERMANN,
19 MARCH
1948 |
| |
| Affidavit |
| |
I, Rudolf Huenermann, Major General [Generalleutnant], retired, a
resident of Rheine/Westphalia, Muensterstrasse 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, Palace of Justice, Nuernberg.
1. From October 1936 until March 1943, I was assigned to the Military
Economics Staff (since 1939: Military Economics and Armaments Office), which
was the department headed by General Thomas. My assignment with this department
was interrupted from June 1940 to the end of March 1941.
2. I have been
shown Prosecution Exhibit 473, Document
EC-489,¹ which is a letter
from Lt. Col. Kirschner, addressed to General Thomas, dated 20 October 1941 and
showing a rubber stamp, according to which it was received on 23 October 1941.
In this letter, Kirschner suggests to employ Russian prisoners of war in the
German economy.
In addition, I have been shown Prosecution Exhibit
1287, Document EC 194² and
Prosecution Exhibit 472, Document EC-200.³
I wish to comment
on these as follows:
According to my knowledge of the office routine
then in force, I consider it impossible that Kirschner’s letter played any
part whatsoever in the Keitel decree of 31 October 1911 (Exhibit 472, Document
EC-200) . The interval which elapsed from the date at which the letter was
received (23 October 1941) and the date of the Keitel decree (31 October 1941)
was much too short. I rather assume that Kirschner’s letter was just
shelved in some file or other and marked |
__________
¹ Reproduced above in
subsection D.
² Ibid.
³ Not reproduced herein.
807 |
. 
