A. The information which we gave to the foreign workers was supposed to serve only the purpose to inform then as objectively as possible about the actual situation and the developments.
Q. You said before, witness, that the foreign workers were interested in also getting news about their relatives. If they wanted to get this news, they had to approach you on their part and also to give you news in general?
A. About special communications and news between relatives, I don't know anything about that. It is possible that it was going on, too. In practice it was as follows: Certain people of our group had regular meetings with certain members of the foreign workers' groups and on this occasion they received letters which were then forwarded to the states that were concerned with our contact man, but then I can say that it was a mutual exchange of news. It was an exchange of news and information between the foreign workers in Germany and the resistance groups in the occupied countries.
In accordance with the information you have given us about the aims of your group and relations in regard to what you said that high treason in the legal sense of the word could be used by you only if you were aiming at a violent exchange - I want to say in a general way - of the existing conditions. If that is so, it is questionable whether you, as a so-called resistance group, could be designated as a resistance group at all. You told us that it was a resistance group; on the other hand, you said that the sentence by the People's Court was regarded by you not as legal because your aims were concerned with the time after the end of the war and constantly you did not aim at a broader basis of resistance among the German people. I would like you to clarify this seeming contradiction.
A. I said that the court before which we were tried was not in a position to pronounce a legal sentence to give us justice. In spite of that, there was a possibility that the defense counsels who worked in this court would utilize every possibility which could speak in favor of the defendants.
The only thing that I have to state is the fact that the defense counsels did not make any use of the possibilities which existed and your question as to the character of our group, describing it as a resistance group, I leave that to the judgment of history.
Q. I may point out that you still owe me an answer, professor, and only in regard to the following; that you stated you believed that you had not committed high treason.
A. I said already once before, high treason was committed by those actually who were sitting on the judge's bench. They committed high treason on the German people and not we. For that reason it is entirely unimportant under what points of view our activity was viewed by these gentlemen. It was of course important for the defense. The defense had to look for possibilities to defend the defendants according to their legal concepts.
Q. In the course of the trial brought against you, you must have been informed about the legal regulations. Here you spoke about right - justice - and you said that the gentlemen on the judge's bench were the actual traitors who committed high treason and not the defendants. I would like to ask you by this hint: do you want to make a difference between justice and law? Do you want to imply it? My first question is: do you know the regulations in the laws about high treason which existed at that time, during the time of your trial?
MR. KING: Your Honors, the witness is a professor of chemistry and not of law. I suggest that the latter question be withdrawn.
DR. SCHILF: I am not trying to contest that, but the witness has made a remark about right and law and he said it in an antithetical way. He said the judges on the bench were the traitors who committed high treason; the defendants had justice on their side. The justice is, in a broad way, perhaps natural law or human law or God's law.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. I would like to ask you whether here the concent of law or of right, which you had at that time and which you obviously still have today, was in accordance with the law which existed at that time, or whether that differed in your opinion with the law.
Therefore, my concrete question is, did you at that time know the regulations of law? Did the provisions governing high treason become known to you?
A. I would also like to state that I am not a student of law. My knowledge of the provisions of the law were incomplete - were as incomplete as they are of the person who is not a student of the subject. However, I would like to point out that the laws have the purpose that justice exists and I was of the opinion that these laws, during the Nazi time, did not serve that purpose.
Q. In that way you have already answered my question. I would like to ask you to state whether in connection with your trial, at that tine in Particular, not theoretically because you were persecuted by Nazi justice administration, did you have knowledge of the laws governing high treason?
A. Actually, the Gestapo answered that question for me. The Gestapo gave me the definition, which I repeated before, that a highly treasonable action, an action of high treason, is an attempt by use of force to overthrow the existing government and to bring about a new government.
Q. Your conception of high treason which exists today in your mind is evident from your remark which you just made.
A. It can very well be that I already heard definitions of this concept before.
Q. But they did not influence you, according to what you just told us now - the conception of what the legal definition of high treason was at that time.
A. Yes.
Q. I am again returning to the Kreisauer Circle, which is not known to you and about which you did not hear about later either. Do you know the minister, Dr. Poelchau?
A. Dr. Poelchau's name I heard for the first time when I was a prisoner in Brandenburg.
Q. Did you hear about his attitude toward the regime which was empowered at the time or his membership in the Kreisauer Circle, which I mentioned? Did you hear about it at that time?
A. About his attitude toward the Nazi regime I was informed, but not about his membership in the Circle.
Q. Do you know that there were quite a number of resistance movements which had similar aims as yourself, that the realization that a revolutionary movement against the existing regime was impossible and that one had to prepare for the time after the German surrender?
A. I always hoped at the time that we would get to know a number of groups of that type through our organizational work but unfortunately this was not the case. Only later did I find out that in Germany there did not exist a larger resistance movement.
Q. Did you later find out that a large number of members of the similar resistance groups were also sentenced to death for high treason?
A. I did not know that at the time.
Q. And not later either?
A. Later, yes.
Q. May I ask you to give us a limited number or some names of these resistance movements which had similar aims or the same aims?
A. I can't do that.
THe PRESIDENT: Dr. Schilf, your question seemed to assume that he has admitted that he was connected with a resistance movement or connected with a resistance group. Now, it may be that his answers were to that effect, but I didn't so understand them, and I just want to get that straightened out, if I may. I think he has denied that there was a resistance movement. It was only something to bring about reforms after the war was over. Can you bring that out more clearly?
MR. KING: Your Honor, this may be the time to ask the witness to clear that up. I will only say that I want to afford him an opportunity to define what he means by "resistance movement" in re-direct. However, I have no objection if you wish him to clear it up at this time.
BY DR. SCHILF:
A. Did you understand the question?
A. Yes. Should I answer the question as to what I mean by a "resistance movement" or "resistance group"?
A. I mean by "resistance covenant" every type of political activity by opponents of the Nazi regime when the Nazis were in power. The resistance movement has as its final aim, from an overall point of view, the overthrowing of the Nazi regime. Therefore, the practical work of the resistance movement in the course of time, and especially with the beginning of the war, changed considerably in its character and in its form. When the war broke out, it became apparent that the attempts to break the Nazi regime through the German anti-Facists Forces had failed, and that a stronger power would bring about the defeat and surrender of the system. For that reason, the different groups of the resistance movement then changed the direction of their work and had to adjust themselves to new conditions. Some groups tried to help do their part to shorten the war by giving direct did to the enemy troops. Other groups started a somewhat more active political group, which is in our case, was aimed at the preparation of a political condition after the collapse. I believe that during the entire course of the war no group of the German resistance movement made preparations for high treason in the proper sense of the word.
However, there may have been many groups who did commit some socalled treason, Landesverrat as distinguished from Hochverrat, but this designation, too, is not a description which is taken from the provisions of the laws which imply that the Nazi regime applied these laws rightfully. This pre-requisite had not been fullfiled as you know.
Q. May I ask you, professor, to answer the second question which the President of the Court repeated, namely, your relationship to other resistance groups at the time. Tell us what you found out later on about the other resistance groups? I believe I repeated your question correctly?
A. Yes. During the war, during the existence of the organization, European Union, I did not have any closer connection with other resistance movements. Such contact was being prepared and the Gestapo never found out about it either until after the end of the war. I was able to get some inside information as the extent and nature of the activities of German resistance movement during the war and also during my time in the Brandenburg Penitentiary, especially after we were liberated.
I made the acquaintance of many members of such resistance groups about whom I now know nothing about.
Q. Unfortunately, you cannot mention any name, at least, you do not remember any name at the moment, of other resistance groups?
A. I can mention the names of several very well-known groups of the German. Resistance Movement, but not such groups who entire activity was close to that of the European Union. Those I did not quite know.
Q. I again have to refer to the first question. In your definition of the "Resistance Movement" in general, you said that the most characteristic clement was the overthrowing of Nazism, do not want to come to a legal argument, but I return to this because you touched upon it at the end of your answer. Do you believe that the overthrowing of the then-governing state government in general is regarded as high treason in popular language?
A. According to that, every human being who during the Nazi regime was an opponent of the Nazis, in his won mind, would then be considered a traitor.
Q. Professor, we shall not argue about it. If he were active, he was a traitor.
A. It depended upon the manner in which he was active and what he actually undertook. That would determine whether it was high treason or not.
Q. We shall not argue about it because actually, it is a legal argument.
MR. KING: Your Honors, this line of questioning is getting into the realm of legal interpretation which I submit the witness is not qualified to make. I object to further questions along this line.
THE PRESIDENT: I think Dr. Schilf make the same admission a moment ago. I think he will not pursue that matter any further.
Q. I come now to answer question, and that is your description of what you know about the prison murder in Sonnenburg in January 1945, and the Penitiary in Brandenburg. You only told us about it very briefly. I would like to ask you, as far as you remember, to state the details.
MR. KING: I do not believe the witness mentioned the murder of any political prisoners in January 1945. Could that month have been April? In other words, may I have the question repeated which Dr. Schilf had just put to the witness? Was it January or April to which he referred?
THE WITNESS: The question of Dr. Schilf?
MR. KING: Was the question Dr. Schilf asked directed to January or April 1945?
DR. SCHILF: The murder occurred in January. The witness heard about it in April, if I understood him correctly.
A. No. This mass execution in Sonnenberg happened in January or February. I do not remember exactly. It became known in Brandenberg very quickly. I heard about it one month after it happened. That is February or in March.
Q. May I ask you to answer my question? What details did you find out about?
A. The Sonnenburg Penitentiary was situated, at this time, directly at the front line, and we found out that Director of the Penitentiary asked the Wehrmacht, the armed forces, to give him help in order to transport the prisoners to another place. Thereupon, the officer of the Wehrmacht stated that this was not a matter of concern to the Wehrmacht, but a matter for the Justice authorities. Thereupon, the director of the Penitentiary returned to his superior authority or some other office, I do not know, and the result was that a small division of SS people appeared and shot 750 political prisoners with revolvers.
Q. It was known at that time already, that it was the SS who shot the prisoners?
A. Yes. That is correct.
Q. Did you also find out at that time, that all of the officials of time Justice department, when they were asked to take part in this as an audience of the so-called liquidation of prisoners, that officials of the Justice Department refused to do so unanimously?
A. I did not hear anything about that at all.
Q. Witness, did you not hear anything about the justice officials refusing to take part in this catastrophe?
A. On the contrary, that I did not hear. I heard part of these officials were fanatical Nazis. Of course, they could not state or boast they refused to take part in it. I believe you have already forgotten how things wore at that time. It would have rather unusual if such officials made such a report publicly at that time.
Q. What I just told you is based on a piece of evidence which will probably be introduced by the Prosecution in this trial showing these unanimously refused to take part in any way in this undertaking of the SS at that time. That explains my attitude about the past.
A. But several officials in Brandenburg took part in executions with a knowledge of their authority, especially Hauptwachtmeister Lange, who almost regularly with a commando of four or more officials witnessed the shooting of a convict on the 20th of July.
Q. Witness, you spoke about executions. May I point out to you, you spoke about executions; I spoke about executions; there is a difference according to the law which existed at that time. Did you want to say something similar, or that it was something similar to Sonnenburg; that it was distinguished from Sonnenburg, wasn't it?
A. I am only stating that the employees of the penitentiary, that employees of the Justice Department, and not executioners conducted executions, carried out executions with the knowledge of their superior office, not only once but repeatedly they carried out executions.
Q. Witness, with the knowledge of their superiors, as you said; is that a conclusion you draw?
A. At least with the knowledge of Oberregiecungsrat Thuemmler.
Q. But that is the superior officer within the penitentiary.
A. The correspondence Thuemmler had with the Reich Ministry of Justice is not known to me.
Q. But I am asking you what you mean by superior offices; Oberregieungsrat Thuemmler was a director of the penitentiary. You further said that in your opinion a similar fate at the penitentiary happened because an illegal group took part in it. I would like to ask you to make some further statement because of this conclusion which you drew, for the reasons which you put the basis of this conclusion.
A. In Brandenburg there was an illegal organization of political prisoners already for many years. This organization had a very strong influence on a number of prisoners. This was possible because the officials were corrupt to such an extent as I never believed possible, never in my life believed possible. The lowest officials were still the most decent ones. The higher the position of the official the more he enriched himself by means of public property and he stole what he could.
These acts were very well known to the political prisoners, and these officials did not keep them secret and deny them in front of the political prisoners. Thus it was possible in the course of time to put pressure on a large number of such officials and in that way to make them amenable to all kinds of influences; thus it was possible that the secret group made it clear to the officials that the life of the prisoners was the prerequisite for their own life, for the life of the officials; and that if any one prisoner in Brandenburg was harmed in the least, that the officials would have to die themselves. And since the effectiveness of this organization was feared by the officials and since we made it clear to them that also some of the officials were members of this organization, they could not hope through the death of the political prisoners to avoid their punishment. All of this together had the effect that at the moment when the question of the calling in of any help in the guarding of the prisoners, and thereby I mean an SS troop, in the penitentiary, through the director of the penitentiary, was being considered by him, by the directors of the penitentiary, the teacher in the high school and the Catholic priest and the protestant clergymen succeeded in convincing the director to have instead two internal officials in the penitentiary; thus, in that way a large decree of security would be obtained in the dangerous times, in the dangerous times of the last days of the war. In any case, the question, the question of transporting of prisoners away and of calling in of an SS troop support was frequently the subject for discussion of the penitentiary officials, management, and it is not at all unimportant that the work of this illegal organization of prisoners was an important factor in not letting this plan be carried out.
Q. I would like to ask another summary question in this regard. You said that the question of transporting prisoners away and the calling in of increased guards was a subject of repeated discussions of management of the penitentiary.
Now, may I ask you how you, as a prisoner, gained knowledge about this?
A. I found out about this through the clergymen in the penitentiary.
Q. May I ask you for the name?
A. His name is Barth.
DR. SCHILF: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any other Defense Counsel desire to cross-examine this witness? Apparently not. Any re-direct examination? We will hear that now.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION (Dr. Havemann) BY MR. KING:We, the Prosecution, prior to the re-direct examination wishes to offer the affidavit of Dr. Havemann, which is NG-399, as Prosecution's Exhibit 240.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean you want to offer it at this time?
MR. KING: That is correct, your Honor.
JUDGE BRAND: What is the exhibit number? Will you give me those figures again?
MR. KING:NG-399 and Exhibit 240. III-C.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Witness, defense counsel for the defendant Lautz questioned you at some length on the characteristics of the organization which were associated with Europeans; he referred to the number of foreign workers who were in Germany, who belonged to your organization. Do you know how so many foreign workers happened to be in Germany at that time?
A. Yes. It was known that these workers against their will were forced to work in Germany.
Q. Then, your organization served in part to get messages back to their homeland from slave laborers imported into Germany to serve the war efforts; is that correct?
A. Yes. The organization had as its purpose to bring messages from the foreign workers here in Germany and to exchange them for messages from their homeland.
Q. In your opinion, so far as you know, these messages were not directed toward sabotage, the sabotaging of the German war effort, unless passing on information about conditions in the homeland is sabotage; is that correct?
A. The contents of these messages concerned personal matters of important members of this organization, and in addition there were affidavits for those people who brought these messages, who carried them and they were given in that way an opportunity to get in touch with other members of the resistance movement, and the messages concerned the possible creation of a transporting of these foreign workers back to their homeland.
Q. Witness, during the course of your cross examination by the defense counsel for the defendant Lautz, you referred to the fact that you were at one time assigned duties, other duties while you were in Brandenburg prior to your trial. Do you mean that you were required to work while you were in prison awaiting trial. If you were, could you tell us what kind of work you were required to do.
A. That concerned the work during the time when I was prisoner pending investigation, under investigation pending trial. Did I understand you correctly?
Q. That is correct.
A. Immediately after I was brought into the penitentiary as a prisoner for investigation, pending trial, I was forced to repair old military coats, overcoats, uniforms. I succeeded then in talking to a tailor who was supervising this work and talking him into letting me work at the sewing machine. During the last ten days, before my transfer to Moabit Prison, I then worked at the sewing machine. Another prisoner in detention, pending trial, refused to do the work which he was told to do, and he did so by pointing out that he was a prisoner for interrogation purposes, and thereupon he was punished by two weeks of serious arrest.
THE PRESIDENT: May I inquire whether the redirect examination will consume very much time?
MR. KING: I estimate not more than ten minutes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The time has arrived for our usual adjournment, and so we will recess at this time until tomorrow morning at 9:30.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 11 April 1947, at 0930 hours).
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF THE AMERICAN MILITARY TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AGAINST JOSEPH ALSTOETTER, ET AL, DEFENDANTS, SITTING AT NURNBERG, GERMANY, ON 2 APRIL 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Carrington T. Marshall, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III.
Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will ascertain if all of the defendants are present in court.
THE MARSHAL: If it please your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of defendants Rothaug and Engert, who are absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: These two defendants have been excused, and proper notation may be made.
DR. SCHUBERT (For defendant Oeschey): May it please the court: the Court yesterday before taking the afternoon recess announced a ruling regarding the questioning of witnesses who have already made an affidavit. This ruling cane through in the German translation in such mutilated form that my colleague and I did not understand your ruling. We would be very grateful if the court would repeat this ruling agains.
THE PRESIDENT: We will announce the ruling at this time, although not exactly the sane ruling as yesterday because the conditions are different this morning. Just before adjournment the prosecution counsel asked to introduce the affidavit of this witness. The court did not rule upon that at the tine. This morning we are prepared to rule that we will admit that affidavit in evidence for the sole reason that defense counsel cross-examined the witness concerning that affidavit. We are admitting the affidavit but setting no precedent on that point.
But hereafter if the defense counsel do cross-examine concerning affidavits, it will make the affidavit admissible. Now, at this time since we are going to admit the affidavit the defense counsel may have the opportunity of further cross-examination on that affidavit if they so desire.
MR. KING: Perhaps we had better see if defense counsel want to cross examine before my re-direct examination. (Pause). Well, we began re-direct yesterday afternoon. Does the court desire we continue with that, and defense, if they desire to cross-examine, later.
THE PRESIDENT: Inasmuch as we began it is alright in this instance.
HAVEMANN - Resumed RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued BY MR. KING:
Q. Mr. Havemann, yesterday in his cross-examination counsel for defendants Mettgenberg, Dr. Schief, asked you what you meant by the term "Resistance Movement." I would like to put to you this morning two or three examples, hypothetical examples, of imaginary organizations, and ask you whether or not in your opinion you would have called those, had they been in existence during the war, resistance movements. Suppose we had -- suppose you had in Germany during the war an organization for the destruction of Nazi monuments after the defeat of Germany; suppose, in another instance, you had an organization whose purpose was to rehabilitate Jews in Germany after the war; in the third place, suppose you had an organization to change, after the war, the name of all streets in Germany bearing the name "Adolf Hitler Strasse". In your opinion would you have called these organizations - had they been existing during the war - would you have called them resistance movements?
A. It is my opinion that every organization of opponents of the Nazi regime during the Nazi time in power which undertook a political activity in any way with a view to the future of Germany, that such a group is to be considered a group of the German resistance movement regardless whether this organization was directed against the existence of the then existing states or whether the aims of the organization would be realized only after the Nazi regime, after military collapse.
Q. In other words, would you say that the tens, "Resistance Movement" as you used it, in a generic term, applies to any activities which opposed the political aims of the Party either before, during or after the war?
A. Of course; especially all those who in an organized manner undertook to help those who during the Nazi time were victims of the Nazi regime. All of those were actually in their efforts not concerned with a change in the existing state order but they only wanted to protect those who were victims of the regime. And, of course, naturally, such groups were opponents of the then existing state and they entered into opposition if the state issued certain laws which these groups did not want to recognize as having legal value and for that reason they would have to be considered as part of the German resistence movement. The essential characteristic seems to me to be the actual basis for all these, was the same for all these people. They stated that the Nazi state was contrary to law and inhumane and that they therefore could not be forced to recognize its laws and to act according to them, but that they felt obligated to act in accordance with laws of humanity - human laws - and, of course, most of the members of the German resistence movement were - at least toward the end of the Nazi regime and toward the end of the war - they were quite clear in their minds that it was not within their powers to overthrow the regime. The only thing they could do consisted of helping the persecuted and the victims of the regime with all the means at their disposal and to prepare the new future of Germany which was seriously endangered and to open up a new way for Germany to enter into the community of nations.
Q. Witness, one further question concerning the cross-examination by Dr. Schief. Dr. Schief asked you if it were not true that the 33 persons executed at Brandenburg prison on Hitler's birthday, April 20, 1945, were not already under sentence of death and awaiting execution; to which you answered, "Yes". May I ask you several further questions in connection with the conditions under which these 33 men, 33 persons, were executed? Do you know whether any of the 33 had clemency appeals pending which had not been acted upon?
A. Most of those 33 people who were executed on the 20th of April 1945 were already for some period of time candidates for death - that is, people who had been condemned to death - and they were in Brandenburg penitentiary. It arises from this fact, that clemency pleas had been made for them and with the conclusion of the action taken on the clemency plea were being executed. It is rather improbable that all of the 33 - that the clemency had been denied for all the 33 at the same time. I believe that this order for the execution was based on order from a higher source, and this is evident from the fact that the 20th April, the birthday of Hitler, was chosen for this day in particular for the execution. Of course, from my own knowledge I cannot state what the individual case was - the progress of the clemency proceedings for the individual cases.
Q. On the basis of your knowledge of the executions do you know whether these 33 persons were afforded opportunity for religious counsel at the time of their execution?
A. As far as I know in numerous executions which took place during the last weeks and months of the war religious counsel was not possible. However, my knowledge about this is not quite certain.
Q. Witness, I was directing my question not to general conditions but to the specific instance in which these 33 were executed. Will you apply your answer to that situation?
A. I found out after my liberation from the penitentiary that at the execution of these 33 there was no religious counsel admitted.
MR. KING: We have no further questions on re-direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: We will inquire at this point whether any of defense counsel desire to further cross-examine concerning the affidavit which has been admitted. (Pause). We hear no further request, and this witness may therefore be excused.
(Witness excused)
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I have two documents your Honors. -Perhaps the witness can be sworn now and then I can put the documents in.
BERTHOLD SCHWARZ, A witness, took the stand and testified as follows BY THE TRIBUNAL ( JUDGE BLAIR):
Stand up and hold up your right hand, and repeat after me the following oath:
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.)
JUDGE BLAIR: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If your Honors please, Document NG-795. This is not in a Document Book. It was distributed on the 9th of April at 5:30 p.m. It will be Exhibit No. 241. In case your Honors do not have it I have here four copies.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you sure this will be 241?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: As I have it, yes, it would be No. 241.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that is correct; No.241.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Dr. Brieger, do you have it?
DR. BRIEGER: (Pause. No answer).
THE PRESIDENT: Should this affidavit become part of one of the Document Books?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: No, your Honor, it is a separate document. It will not be put in any Document Book.
Dr. Brieger advises me that it is the first time he has seen it in the German version. However, the receipt indicates that it was delivered to the Defense Center, Room 394, at 1730 on April 9; 16 German copies and 4 English.
I don't care to read from the Document and I offer it was Prosecution Exhibit 241. I won't read from document because I have felt myself that it has probative value and I wish to proceed as rapidly as possible.
THE PRESIDENT: (Indicating a document just handed him) Is that the name of this witness?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: No, no.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Now, Document 855 was distributed at 1350 hours yesterday. Admittedly the full 24-hour period has not expired.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE BRAND): You say it Was distributed yesterday?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yesterday at ten to two.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE BRAND): Where?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: As it properly should be distributed, your Honor, the Defense Center.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE BRAND) Not to the Bench, however.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: No; I have copies for the Bench. I have here copies -- at least one copy, your Honor -- and of course the time has not expired; we could not get this distributed as fast as we had hoped to. Dr. Brieger would be perfectly within his rights to object to its being introduced at this time. However, it would permit us to crossexamine both against the witness and the document, if he has no objection. However, I shall not offer it as an exhibit actually over Dr. Brieger's objection.
DR. BRIEGER: No objection.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Thank you very much.
I offer as Prosecution Exhibit No. 242, Document NG-855, which is the affidavit of Dr. Berthold Schwarz.