We call attention first to the indictment which begins on page 34 the copy as circulated. We do not wish to read any portion of the indictment. We do, however, call attention to the fact that Lauts who signed th* affidavit -- or the indictment, I am sorry, his signature appears on page We also call attention to the fact that there is a circulation lis which actually is the first page on copy circulated, which is signed and initialed by a number of officials in the Reich Ministry of Justice, incl* ing the defendant Barnickel, whose initials appear on the original.
On page 2 the opinion of the Court begins, and we note it at the bottom of page 2 that with the defendant Engert was the vice president of the court hear in the case.
Continuing in the opinion on page 3 under the heading "reasons", * read that paragraph: "No fact of importance to the question of guilt and not guilty were forthcoming at the trial in connection with the accused themselves, who, according to their national descent, all are Poles. In lation to the case the following was established on the basis of admission of the accused, and of the evidence supplied by the witnesses Senior Secretary for criminal affairs of Braun and Bninski."
In Roman I, continuing: "The Organization and aims of the 'Stronni* Narodowe." The accused were all active in connection with an organization called "Stronnictwo Narodowe.' The 'Stronnictwo Narodowe' (abbreviated SN "in German 'Nationalistic Party', was a parliamentary party in the formed Poland, which aimed at an authoritarian form of government and a Greatpoland on a national basis. They consequently attacked the former democra government in Poland, which had been under the influence of Jews, Freema* and Marxists. Organisationally the SN was divided into three groups corr ponding to the western, central and eastern parts of Poland, There was operations staff at the head of each area: the central Headquarters of the SN, was situated in Warsaw. The accused Wolniewicz *was a member of the operations staff for the western territory as from 1937, to begin with as representative of young students, later as Head of the propaganda depart We turn now to the pages in the Opinion, page 16 in the English, and I am sorry I do not have the German page number.
It is the first full pararaph on page 16 of the English: "In their statements concerning the aims of the organization of which they were members, all defendants lied. They assert that the SN aspired to seize the power only at a date when there would again exist an independent Poland, namely, when the Germans would either, after having been defeated by the Western powers, have evacuated former Polish territory, or, after their victory, would have re-establish an independent Polish state, although within more restricted limits. The state that on the contrary, it had not been the aim of the SN to use force against the Germans at a given time in order to expel them from the count and to re-establish the old Poland. The defendant Piotrowski has adduced this connection that such violent measures would have been foolish in vieof Polands situation, as her future only depended on the result of the was and could not be influenced in any form by the Polish population."
Skipping the next paragraph, beginning the English with the last pa** graph on the page, at page 16: "It was apparent that the SD desired to wa for a favorable moment when Germany would be weakened by expected defeats France and England. For this moment, however, the use of force was planned as is clearly shown by the fact that arms had already been partly stored the organization, and detailed plans of all important buildings, especially of those occupied by the Germans, had been drawn up on order of the organzation's leader. The latter measure could only have had the purpose of pr paring for the occupation of these buildings by force. Against the earnest intention of the SN to start a revolt among the Polish population for the elimination of the German reign at a suitable date, no arguments founded reason can be adduced to the effect that such an endeavor would be condem to failure in advance, in view of the strength of the German Reich, and the fact that a hope for a defeat of the Reich was delusive in view of the fa able war situation."
The Poles have frequently shown an astonishing want of sense of reality i* the course of their history. When their national passions were released, these and not reason have always guided their action. Thus, at the end o* the 18th century, they repeatedly started revolts against Prussianand Rus* although the final failure was certain from the beginning. The Poles, then fore, do not possess any sense for practical politics, so that such considerations are not a proof against the plans of force of the SN. The his tory of the Polish revolts, however, is an essential proof for the fact that in the situation in which the Poles found themselves after their defeat, the SN, too, aspired, in accordance with the historical patterns to turn the destiny of the Polish people by means of armed revolt.
That this was the aim of the SN can be clearly seen from the contents of the pamphlets which were regularly issued at short intervals. T* speak openly and bluntly of the planned use of arms, saying "that the cha* of HITLER'S occupation would be burst" and "the moment for vengeance had be waited for, in order to knock down the oppressor and turn him out and drive him behind the Oder for ever."
The resounding plan of a Greater Poland is clearly expressed by the following sentence: "The historical justice toward Poland which has waite for its realization since Boleslav CHROBRY, will be accomplished. He has planted the boundary-posts of Poland in the Oder, the Oder has been our Polish river and the Oder will also be a Polish river in the future. To Poland will return the old Silesian land, Breslau and Ratibor, Stettin wi* return, the Pomeranian princely castle." The following passage speaks ope of the use of arms: "We must be prepared for an armed conflict, if that necessity presents itself. The collection for the purpose of the national fight which we have announced shall serve this end." The quoted passages the writings of the SN will be enough to show that the efforts of the SD were not only aimed at a violent expulsion of the Germans from the Polish territories, but beyond this, at an establishment of a Greater Poland, ann ing large German regions, including Breslau and Stettin."
"All defendants therefore, have been guilty of the crime of planning of high treason. As they directed or were leading members of an organization which aimed at forcibly seizing the Eastern territories annexed to the Rep and beyond that even old German regions, they planned high treason to the disadvantage of the Gorman Reich in the sense of the paragraph 80, sub-pa 1 of the Penal Law (paragraph 83, sub-par. 2 of Penal Law)."
May we turn to Page 19 in the English text, approximately in the middle of the page, with the sentence beginning: "For reasons of national self-preservation." Page 21 of the German:
"For reasons of national self-preservation it is necessary, there to proceed with the most severe measures at our disposal against the defe* ants, as leading heads of this organization which aims at the annihilation Germanism in the East, in the present struggle which the German people is leading for its life. No differentiation can be made whether they have been active as leaders of the entire organization or as its advisers, as leader of sections or districts, or as couriers. All functions were equally important for the success of the plans and therefore equally dangerous for the German people. In an organization which was not still in the stage of develing but which was already organized to the last detail, even a somewhat subordinated function was of great importance for the achievement of the organization's goal. For reasons of the atonement, as well as in order to discourage any desire of like-minded elements in the future to revolt aga the German Reich, therefore, the death-sentence of all defendants is the only adequate and just punishment. This punishment, therefore, has been m out to all defendants by the senate.
At the same time according to paragraph 32 of Penal Law all defendant had to be deprived for life of honorary civil functions on account of their anti-German activities. All the defendants, however, are racial Poles. However, the constitutional position of the Polish population in the Eastern territories is not clear, as yet. As it is possible that it will be in a similar constitutional position as the German population, as a precaution civil rights had to be denied."
The Opinion is signed by the defendant Engert.
We now turn to Page 22 of the text as distributed, which is a Petition for a new trial or a new hearing, which was made on the basis of the newly discovered evidence. We wish to read a portion of that Denial, which appears on Page 22, beginning in the middle of the page under Roman "To the President of the 2nd Senate of the People's Court:
According to Item 10, Paragraph 1 of the Penal Ordinance for Poles, dated 4 December 1941, and since the coming into force of this Ordinance, protectorate subjects of Polish blood can no longer file requests for a n trial of their case. This rule should doubtlessly apply to those cases wh have been prosecuted before the People's Court since it cannot be assumed that the Penal Ordinance for Poles does not purport in anyway to place th Poles sentenced by the People's Court in a more favorable position.
"Since, in my opinion, there is no reason whatsoever to" -- the ne word is not clear in my copy. We will just have to leave that blank.--"Si in my opinion, there is no reason whatsoever to (blank) a judicial decisi in the present case, I propose to inform the condemned Pietrowski to the effect that he cannot avail himself of any right to file requests for a n trial, and that I, for my part, have found no motive to file a request for new trial of the case in his favor. I shall, moreover, examine whether the document is to be treated as a pardon plea."
That is dated Berlin, February 14, 1942.
We call attention to eight letters beginning on Page 25 of the Engl text, all of which are similar in content and consist of denial of clemency pleas for the defendants. There is a letter for each of the condemned defe ants; each letter being signed by the defendant Schlegelberger and dated 6 March 1942. This is an extremely lengthy document, and in excerpting as w** have, we have had in mind to call the essential facts to the attention of Court without prejudicing the facts as they exist. With that in mind, we offer the Document NG-596 as Prosecution Exhibit 137.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence, and we will take the afternoon recess at this time of 15 minutes.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: An important announcement will be made at this time. On next Saturday, March 29, at ten o'clock a.m. there will be a Saturday session of this court, of this Tribunal, which will be held in Room 600, that being the room that is usually occupied by Tribunal No. 1. At that time the evidence introduced will be a film on display lasting about an hour and a half, representing the People's Court.
I shall further announce at this time that beginning next Monday morning this Tribunal will meet in Room 501, that being the room at present occupied by Tribunal No. 2. These meetings in that room beginning next Monday will last a short time to permit certain re-arrangements to be made of the desks in this room.
MR. KING: The next and final document which we desire at this time to introduce is Document NG-613, which is to be found on Page 51 of the English Book 3-B and 148 in the German text. When I say "final" document I refer to the final document in this book. We shall emit reading from the indictment, which begins on Page 51.
THE PRESIDENT: There seems to be a little confusion as to whether or not Exhibit 137 was introduced.
MR. KING: Exhibit 137; yes. Exhibit 137 was the last large document, voluminous document, NG-596.
To repeat, we shall omit reading from the indictment of this particular case which begins on Page 51, and also includes the following page. We shall read from the opinion of this case, beginning on Page 56 in the English text which is, I believe, Page 140 and 141 in the German text. Beginnin on Page 56 under II:
"After the breakup of the Polish State the defendant frequently visited his relatives who were living in the Eastern territories. When in the autumn of 1940 he visited his brother-in-law, the cattle-dealer Kasimir Kubiak, who lived in Powitz, the latter got him to read a "prophecy" which was written by hand in the Polish language. The contents of the latter include the following passage:
"Nastro Damos who was born in Paris in 1603, was asked by Catherine de Medici whether France would ever lose her independence. He answered: I see three persons of lowly birth who will take the throne. The first is Mussolini, who will rule beside the Pope and the king. The second is Stalin, who bids his people free themselves from God and convert their hands into fists, and who also closes his boundaries in the sight of others. The third in Germany is Hitler, who at the end of 1939 will send his army to the mouth of the Vistula. It will be a short and bloody battle. He willinvade our empire by way of Flanders. A long time before France will erect a wall of steel in which the soldiers will live, who protect the frontiers. Paris will cease to exist. The towns of Europe will be devastated and the villages will die out; there will come grief upon grief. So many aircraft will cross the sea that the sun will be darkened. That will be 430 years after my birth."
"Then the writing further prophesied that the white eagle would rise again, but that the black eagle would be overthrown and a new *** powerful Polish Empire would arise which would be twice as big as the old one and extend from sea to sea.
"The defendant made a copy of this "Prophecy", and on his subsequent return to Stettin - finally in the summer of 1942 - read it out at least four separate occasions to several Polish civilian workers, who were billeted there in special camps in Heiliger Geist-Str., Grosse Oderstrasse and Frauenstrasse. He asked the workers whom he visited in the camps not to betray him. Then he says he destroyed the document.
"The defendant also frequently visited the Polish workers in these camps other than on these occasions, or he spoke to them in the street and sent them cigarettes and victuals (bread, butter, eggs, jam, tangerinos, strawberries, etc.), and in spite of the existing prohibition, several times in 1942 he took a Polish worker to a German service in a Catholic Church, making him fever up with his cap the "P" on the right side of his breast, which showed th t he was a Pele.
"The defendant also exhorted other Poles to fervent prayer on his visits."
We do not wish to read further in this opinion except to point out that for this reading in a subsequent trial the defendant was sentenced to death. We introduce as Exhibit 139 the Document NG-613.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received.
MR. KING: The Court will observe that in Book B from which we have just read there is one additional affidavit, NG-675. We do not at this time wish to introduce that in evidence. We may later, but if so we will give the Court and the defendants' counsel ample opportunity to bring the book with them prior to the introduction.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean by that is the only document in that book not yet introduced, but you might introduce it.
MR. KING: That is right.
The next four cases which we wish to present should be read in connection with the law which appears on Page 13 of Document Book 2. It is Exhibit 112. That refers to Article 2 and 2a of the Penal Code. Since this has already been introduced in evidence, I wish only to read the applicable article to which the cases from which I am about to read apply.
THE PRESIDENT: We are not sure about the page in the book.
MR. KING: Page 13. I will read only Article 2.
"Whoever commits an act which the law declares as punishable or which deserves punishment according to the fundamental idea or a penal law and the sound concept of the people, shall be punished. If no specific penal law can be directly applied to this act, then it shall be punished according to the law whose underlying principle can be most readily applied to the act."
It will be noticed that I read the "or" in the first sentence as "and". That is pursuant to a typographical error which defense counsel pointed out to us last week.
Pursuant to the section of the law from which I have just read a part, desire to introduce, at this time, as Exhibit 139, the Document NG-385 which to be found in the index of Book 3c in the English Text, at Page 87 andin the German text at Page 78.
This document was distributed separately and for the convenience of the Court several copies have been handed up to the bench so you will be able to follow as I read.
So far as pagination in the English text is concerned, we will start first with Page 87-1, the last page being 87-26. I think that will fit into the system of numbering adequately We turn to the sentence of the Court which, incidentally, is the Special Court for Nurnberg, which was handed down on 9 July 1942.
The portions which we wish to read begin on Page 16, from the opinion under "Reasons I."
"The defendant was brought up by his parents in Burnberg. After attended primary school for four years and secondary school for six years, he worked for two years as an apprentice with the Siemens Schuckert works in Nurnberg, with the intentions of becoming an engineer.
His father was employed as an engineer with the Siemens Schuckert works. Later on, the defendant gave up his intention. From 1921 onwards, he worked as a coiler, first with the say plant. In the years that followed, he found employment with other plants i his acquired profession.
"With regard to politics the defendant was a member of the Communist Party from the fall of 1932 until its dissolution. He was also political head of the urban district, Nurnberg-South for six months. Even after the dissolution of the Communist Party, the defendant continued to pursue the aims of the Communist Party, i.e. the establishment of an Advisory Council Dictatorship of the Proletariat in Germany. Towards the end of the year 193 he had discussions with a Communist leader about the situation of the Commun Party in Nurnberg, Grasser participated in the reconstruction of the CommuniParty in Nurnberg in a liaison capacity, distributing Communist pamphlets and placing his apartment at disposal for meetings. Because of these illegal activities for the Communist Party, which continued till January 1934, the defendant was arrested on 8 February 1934, and by sentence of the Bavarian Supreme Court, which is the Court of Appeal, Munich, dated 9 June 1934, was convicted to two years imprisonment for the crime of preparation for high treason.
"The defendant served the term of imprisonment until 9 June 1936. After that he was detained in the Dachau Concentration Camp until 21 April 1939.
"On 19th May 1939, the defendant was re-employed with the Siemens Schuckert works and was assigned to his old job ms a coiler. For this occupation he drew the usual pay.
"On the occasion of the bombing of the town of Schwabach by English planes, several fellow-workers of the defendant, were discussing that night attack on 13 October 1941. In the course of that discussion, while the attack on defenseless civilians was being strongly repudiated, the defendant remarked that, for the English, residential quarters were military targets as well, because, as a result of the attacks on the civilian population, people would be losing their lives, be missing from their jobs and therefore lost for production.
"A few days later, several fellow-workers of the defendant were again discussing the enemy's nightly air raids. The conversation turned to the German night fighters. This turning point of the conversation caused the defendant to make the remark: 'They have no more gasoline.
"These facts were established on the basis of the defendant's statement and on the testimonies of witnesses.
"The defendant pleads in his defense: Concerning his remark about the attempt on the Fuehrer's life he did not mean to implicate that it had been committed by men from the ranks of the NSDAP. After the Reichstag fire, a great many people, particularly Communists, had been arrested. After hearing about the attempt he was afraid that, consequently, a new wave of arrests would follow. In his excitement over it and his fear that he might be sent to Dachau, he had made the remark in question. His excitement had been so heavy that he had been quite absent minded.
"Concerning the Rohr case, he said he had only discussed it with his fellow-worker Kaas. The witnesses Fischer and Eisenmann had not taken part in the discussion; they had definitely been 'eavesdropping.' He is alleged to have said to Kaas that Rohr probably found himself to be in an embarrassing situation. Probably he had been placed before the alternative either to remain in France and accept the consequences, or to return to Germany. Thus Rohr might have had no other choice than to join the French Army.
"At his working place, the defendant soon proved to be a political. querolant. The defendant himself illustrated his political conception by saying: 'I don't fight or oppose the present State neight do I support it. I will wait and see what the future will bring forth.'
"Late in the fall of 1939 and in the course of the years 1940 and 1941, the defendant made various remarks hostile to the State during discussions with follow-workers.
"When the Munich attempt on the life of the Fuehrer of 9 November 1939 became known and about six of the defendant's fellow workers were discussing the subject in the workshop of the plant, reading together a newspaper report on the incident, the defendant suddenly bent over those who were reading from behind, interfering in the conversation with these words:
'This seems me to be like the Reichstag fire."
"Approximately at the beginning of the campaign against France, the defendant's fellow-worker Fischer was discussing the case of the National football player Ossi Rohr with him and coiler Kaas: Ossi Rohr -
You do not have that in the German text? It is 112 in the German text, defense counsel points out. We better go back to the beginning of that paragraph.
"Approximately at the beginning of the campaign against France, the defendant's fellow-worker Fischer was discussing the case of the National football player Ossi Rohr with him and coiler Kaas, Ossi Rohr was said to have been hired by the French as a football player. When conscription was introduced in Germany, Rohr refused to return to fulfill his military servi He became a French citizen, and is also said to have joined the French Army During the discussion it was also mentioned that Rohr was supposed to be fighting against Germany on the French side. Fischer who started the discussion condemned the undignified behavior of the football player, Rohr. The defendant Grasser replied, that had he been there himself, he would have acted in the same way and joined the French Army. Sometime before the outbreak of the war against Russia, when starting work one morning, the defendant said to the coiler Kaas, and this so loudly that Fischer could overhear him: 'Now I know who is going to win the war; Russia and America will be the only victors in this war.' At these words Grasser rubbed his hands. Haas agreed with Frasser's remark.
He added, that in his place many other persons possibly would have acted in the same way.
"He had not made the remark about Russia's victory and America's prospect of victory on his own, but rather a fellow worker had asked him, who would probably win the war. Whereupon he had answered, that whoever showed greates endurance would win the war. In this connection he expressed his opinion that it would be Russia and America because they had the most powerful economy.
"During a conversation with his fellow workers about the air raid on Schwabach, a colleague had stated, that the English had not bombed military objectives. Whereupon he replied, that nowadays every human being was vital for the war effort as his annihilation would mean a labor deficiency, With this remark he referred to the importance of each particular human life during a war, thus wanting to defend the Schwabach victims, after the others had interpreted matters as if a human life had no value at all.
"Shortly before this his comrade had told him that the war would not last for a long time as the English had no more gasoline. After the air raid on Schwabach he had declared, that in his opinion others no longer had any gasoling. This remark referred to the English aircraft and not to the German Night fighters."
We now turn in the opinion to Page 21 in the English text under Roman III "In legally assessing the facts of this case the Court has been guided by the following considerations:
The defendant's remarks in connection with the attempt on the Fuehrer's life construes antagonism between the Fuehrer on the one hand and the movement created and led by men from the ranks of the NSDAP.
"In his remark about the ROHR-football player the defendant glorified a treasonable attitude. He revealed by this remark his negative attitude, he criticised all orders issued by the State Leadership which aim at maintaining the fight for national existence.
"Confidence in victory in this present war of liberation against the enemy's destructive will, is being explained, and even hammered into the German people, again and again by the German News Agency with all means of propaganda. By his remark, that Russia and America would be victorious, the defendant has openly opposed the News Agency's endeavors to spread confidence in victory, and attempted to destroy the people's confidence in the German News Agency.
"The News Agency is an instrument in the hand of the German Government forming the political opinion of the German people. The defendant incitingly criticised the authenticity and reliability of the German News Agency's victory propaganda.
"The defendant also directed his attack against the German News Agency through the remark about the raid by English planes on Schwabach in justify this enemy air attack. The German propaganda daily points out to the German people, that only the bombing of military objectives is permissible according to the international rules of warfare, whilst the bombing of residential quarters and thereby the attack on the civilian population is not only a breach of international law, but also to be condemned under the concepts of justice and humanity.
"The same applies to the remark against the use of German night fighters. The defendant has undertaken to undermine the hope in the efficiency and military strength of the night fighters, thus expressing doubt in the authen city of the successes reported by the D.N.B., which is the German News Agency "With his remarks, the defendant mainly discredited the prestige of the NSDAP consciously and deliberately.
The general disparaging criticism of the defendant refers to current events in the political life of the German people in a way such as to make it evident that it was the defendant's intention to discredit the measures and institutions of the National Socialist Government in the eyes of his audience with distorting and false recrimination The defendant's remarks about events of the war were generally likely to undermine the political belief of German nationals in the necessity of the war, in the national interest and the confidence and trust in the German Government. The aim the accused was pursuing with his false statements could be nothing else but to create among his audience a negative attitude towards the National Socialist State.
"All these statements were made by the accused in the workshops of the Sienesns-Schukert-Werks, a large armament concern. His remarks could be overheard, by an indefinite number of persons not known to one another personally, if they directed their attention to them.
It cannot be contended, therefore, that these remarks were made solely within a private circle. They were therefore made in public. The defendant is therefore guilty of an offense under Section 2, Par. I, of the Law of December 20th, 1934. According to this provision his prosecution has been ordered.
"In a multitude of cases the defendant made seditious, inflammatory remarks, which constitute an offense against the Law against malicious acts and insults, and so he continued in the same way, always committing an offer against the same law. His various remarks originate from one single intent, the realization of a premeditated total success, namely political agitation. For this reason the Court assumed only one continued criminal act.
"The National Socialist political mode of life of the German people is based on community life. The successful defense of National Socialist Germany against the enemy's determination to destroy her requires sacrifices, even great mortal sacrifices, which constitute an imperative consequence of this community life. The arguments and remarks about no victorious end of the war, etc., were, as their contents conclusively show, used by the defendant to depreciate the sacrifices demanded of the German people. In this connection the remarks about Russia's and America's prospects of victory, the disparag criticism of Germany's fight for national existence as well as the attempt to destroy the hopes in the military strength of the night-fighter, thus comprise an attack on the conception of the state upon which the national community life is based, and the fundamental principles of the National Socialist community. They were intended to undermine the people's will to fight for national existence. The attacks the defendant directed against the people's fighting power and will of resistance were made with some special interest in mind. The defendant could not count on his remarks being confined to the circle of persons to whom they were addressed. The individual remarks appear also in this connection as subordinate consecutive stages of a single criminal act, i.e., a crime of undermining the military morale under Section 5, Par. I, No. 1 Special Penal Decree for War Time dated 11/8/1939, which came into force on 26/8/1939. The fundamental attitude of the defendant, of no value from a national point of view as shown, justifies the interpretation that the attacks directed against the German people's fighting power an will of resistance only constitute a part of a systematic agitation carried out by the defendant."
We turn now to Page 24 of the text as distributed, beginning under Roman 1 "The court gained the impression that the defendant is principally opposed to the national-socialist regime.
The established facts reveal that he has become politically aggressive to the highest degree. His actions constitute a central sabotage in the service of enemy propoganda.
"In his youth already the defendant showed' a hostile attitude towards the national community life. Even today he still holds himself aloof from it. The aim of tho Communist Party (KPD) has become his political creed. He aimed at becoming a convinced Communist and adopting the full Communist of life.
"When the National socialism came to power in Germany reconciliation was offered to the defendant too. Neither this favor shown to the defendant nor the previous punishment and temporary stay in a concentration camp caused the defendant to renounce his political past. He has remained the old Communist sworn enemy of National Socialism.
"Though the offences of the defendant did not show any considerable effect to be noticed at present, the instigation and the methods chosen by the defendant are no less dangerous and may under certain circumstances, have ver sorded consequences. On the whole the action of the defendant represents a definite political act of sabotage; thus it is a serious danger to the unific tion of the German people, accomplished by the Fuehrer. The decision itself stamps the defendant as an unscrupulous enemy. Therefore it is necessary to increase to the utmost the penal risk for undermining activities of political saboteurs of the type of the defendant.
"Considering the personality of the defendant, his political attitude, the methods established and the intentions of his actions, the court is of the opinion that he deserves the severest possible sentence, provided by Section of Decree against Public Enemies, i.e., the death sentence. On the strength of the same considerations the Court could not assume a less severe case of a Crime of undermining the defensive morale in application of Section 5, Par. 2 of the Special War Time Penal Decree. The established case of Par. 1 No. 1 of this Section provides the absolute death punishment.
Therefore no other punishment could be inflicted but death."
That is all of this opinion that we care to read at this time, and we therefore offer the document as Exhibit 139, Document N.G. 385.
JUDGE BRAND: What exhibit number did you give that?
MR. KING: 139.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit will be received in evidence.
DR. KOESSL (Counsel for defendant Rothaug): May it please the Tribunal, at this opportunity, with the permission of the Tribunal, I would like to reserve the right to make the reservation that I should be permitted to ask for all original documents from which parts have been used by the prosecution for presentation and submission of evidence, and I ask the Tribunal to take notice of the fact that I shall put motions of this kind in writing before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: In as much as this objection is made by counsel for the defendant Rothaug, I would like to ask Dr. Koessl whether Rothaug had any connection with this document.
DR. KOESSL: It says on the document, it is marked on the document on the next page of the verdict, sentence, that Dr. Ferber acted in the absence and signed in the absence of Rothaug who was at that time presiding Judge of that court. Furthermore, it can be seen from the document that the whole case was presented in the presence of the defendant Rothaug as presiding judge.
THE PRESIDENT: On the contrary, I find that on the last page of the document, page number 25, that Dr. Rothaug is prevented from attendance by being out of town on official business.
DR. KOESSL: In our opinion that refers to the fact only that the written form of the sentence could not be signed by him because he was absent at the time.
MR. KING: If Your Honors please, from the prosecution's point of view defense counsel is correct since we will contend that this is one of the special court cases in which the defendant Rothaug had full knowledge and a participating party in it as shown by the other documents in this exhibit. I think it is quite clear that Rothaug was an active and, in fact, a chief participant. The conclusions to be drawn from that, we would reserve until a future time. The purpose of reading the docu ment was merely to get the facts of the case into the record.
It is true that the statement at the end of the opinion says Dr. Rothaug was out of Nuernberg, away from the city at the time when the opinion came down. We contend that that did not remove him from the scope of the responsibility in the decision in this case. As to the request made by defense counsel, it seems to us that while we have a certain sympathy for his point of view it would require a great deal more documentation than merely those documents in which Dr. Rothaug is referred to, because they all, in one way or the other, tie in with each other, and it would not only be a matter of furnishing the documents in which Rothaug is specifically mentioned, but in a great many other documents, such as this statute which I have just read, all of which seems to us to require more reproduction work that it seems either necessary or advisable to do. On the other hand, Dr. Rothaug can get the mimeographed copies which are accurate translations and the Defense Information Center is furnished with two photostatic copies of the original from which both Rothaug's counsel and Engert's counsel can draw and we think under the circumstances that supply should be sufficient to meet the needs of these two defendants who are temporarily absent.
THE PRESIDENT: Do we understand that defense counsel will put his objection in writing and present it at a later date?
DR. KOESSL: Yes. Mr. President, primarily it is a question that the defense would like to get information about the to *** of these files. Only in individual cases it will be seen whether other files need or have to be mimeographed and introduced in evidence. Therefore, my motion will have as its aim primarily to be permitted to see the original files myself in order to make use of these files for the defense.
MR. KING: The prosecution has at this time nothing more in substance to say except that when the motion is filed we will at that time file an opposing motion to it and state essentially what I have already told the court.
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem that is the orderly process.
MR. KING: The next document which the prosecution desires to introduce is Document NG-377, which appears on page 88 of the English, 113 of the German text, and it will become Exhibit 140 when formally offered in evidence. Page 88 of Book 3-C:
"The defendant Zinser, who is a subject of the Reich, after attending the then Russian elementary school in Lodz, in 1915 moved with his parents to Silesia and then to Dresden, where he worked as a helper in several factories. In January 1919 he returned to Lodz. After a short period of unemployment and after performing his military service in the then Polish army he was employed in July 1926 by the Polish Sick Fund in Lodz. He was dismissed from that position in February 1930, ostensibly for political activity in German organizations.