THE PRESIDENT: That will be all. That will be all, thank you.
(The witness was excused.)
THE PRESIDENT: Next witness, if any. How about some documents?
DR. SEIDL: (Attorney for the Defendant Pohl): Your Honor, the defense would like to present some documents, However, I don't know whether the Tribunal as yet has received the English translation. If that should not be the case, I shall try to obtain the translation during the recess.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. We don't want to waste the rest of the afternoon. Whatever is to be presented, this is a good chance either for the prosecution of the defense in the way of documents or witnesses, or any other proof. We will take the recess while you are arranging your proof.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. DEIDL (For the defendant Oswald Pohl): May it please the Tribunal, it was my intention to submit my documents on behalf of Oswald Pohl. The document book consists of three volumes, 1, 2, and 3. Volumes 2 and 3 have not yet been translated. Volume 3 has been translated for sometime and mimeographed. I have endeavored for some days to obtain the translation of Volume 1. I went to Room 554 in the recess where the translations are available by the dozens. Unfortunately, it was not possible for me to move the official in charge to let me have even one single copy. I told him that I would inform the court of this state of affairs.
So I must tell the court that for that reason I am unable to submit those documents which are located in Volume 1 of Pohl's document books. I have made sure myself that the translations are available; but for reasons unknown to me it was not possible for me to obtain the books.
THE PRESIDENT: You have three document books?
DR. SEIDL: Yes, there are three; but they are not very big ones.
THE PRESIDENT: How many of them do you have ready to distribute? One or none?
DR. SEIDL: Volume 1 has been translated and mimeographed and is ready to be distributed; but it has not been handed to me. It has remained stocked in Room 554 as I found out myself about ten minutes ago.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean there's nothing more to be done? It's all ready? .
DR. SEIDL: Yes, entirely ready, even bound.
THE PRESIDENT: What about book 2?
DR. SEIDL: Books 2 and 3 have not yet been translated. I was told that they are still being translated and will soon be ready. I intended at least to submit the documents contained in Book 1. After those books have been completed and bound, I should be grateful for the Court's assistance in attempting to obtain Document Book 1.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if it's all ready, there won't be much trouble in getting it out of Room 554. We can got it as long as it's ready. A number of other counsel have document books; and it has been suggested that without reading them into the record they merely be submitted to the Tribunal to read and that the prosecution can object to any particular document that they wish but that it won't be necessary to read them and refer to them by document book number. You can offer the book in evidence and the Tribunal will take it and read it. It will save a great amount of time. Is there any objection to that? The prosecution will follow the same plan. They have some books to submit; and they will offer them as books, and you can object any time to any one of the documents that you wish.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: (for the defendants August Frank and Hans Loerner):
If the Tribunal please, the prosecution had the opportunity of offering their document books, which up till then were twenty-three, and even though on many occasions they merely had reference to the index, nevertheless they were in a position orally to connect them with various points of the indictment. Thus the material reached the transcript in an impressive manner orally as is the idea of this trial. If I merely submit my document books without being able to establish a connection between the various documents and if they are only being read by the Tribunal, I believe that I am at a disadvantage as compared to the prosecution as far as the efficacy of my defense is concerned.
Court No. II, Case No. IV I do not think that the wish to save time should be the sole justified element, if they are helping to produce anything which exonerates the defendants to the best advantage of the defendants.
I have collected as few documents as possible, but I should be most grateful if I could read those; that would not mean that I shall read the whole of them.
THE PRESIDENT: If you feel that suggestion would be a disadvantage to you, why that settles it. We don't want to force a plan upon you which is, even in your opinion, would be a disadvantage or a handicap, and, if you prefer to present your documents one by one and by reading from them, or parts of them, if you think that is important, why, we, of course, will not interfere with that. Are there other counsel who fell the same way? You do Dr. Von Stakelberg?
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Yes, I do, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. RASCHENBAUER: I shall then read them with Your Honors' permission.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pribilla.
DR. PRIBILLA: Dr. Pribilla for the defendant Tschentscher.
THE PRESIDENT: We are not trying to rush or hurry the hearing as much as we are trying to avoid losing of time, which is even worse than hurrying too fast. Is there any reason why you can not put your client on the stand tomorrow?
DR. PRIBILLA: Certainly, Your Honor. My position is that the witnesses who will be presented by Dr. Stakelberg will also be my own witnesses. They are colleagues of Tschentscher only on the witness stand after he has heard those witnesses testify, because he should in the end give his own comments. Otherwise, I would have to call him twice to the witness stand. Mr President, if the Tribunal please, may I make a suggestion.
I understand that Dr. von Stakelberg is ready to submit his witnesses, and that would fill out todays session. Tomorrow Dr. von Stakelberg will not be present, and, therefore, we cannot hear our mutual witnesses tomorrow. I don't know what these witnesses are saying, therefore, I can not ask the questions.
DR. STAKELBERG: If I may make a suggestion. It was my thought that tomorrow, perhaps, my colleagues would submit their document books. There are so many document books that are outstanding, that even if it is being done at full speed, only the must important items can be shown briefly. That will, at least, take the whole day tomorrow, I should think, and that will take care of tomorrow's session.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Dr. Stakelberg, it is only a matter of curiosity that I ask. Why would you want to put the defendant on last? I ask as a matter of curiosity, if I were a defense attorney, I would want to put my defendant on as soon as possible. I can not understand the psychological effect. I only ask that out of curiosity. Why don't you want to put him on.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: With my clients it is more as a matter of principle, when he is charged. In all my cases I always produced the witnesses first, and then the defendant, because I always assume that the defendant knew must of it, and, I can, therefore, ask him all those things which the witnesses could not answer. That is always the principle which I follow, and if this principle should not be correct, I have no practical objections to interrogating the defendant before the witnesses; on the other hand, neither is my questioning, as it may not be quite so complete in that case.
DR. PRIBILLA: May I say something about this. I was suddenly faced with entirely new evidence on the part of the Prosecution regarding Tschentscher's activity at the front, so far that no accusation had been raised against him until last week when the Prosecution witnesses appeared here.
Now I have found a number of people who were in Tschentscher's Supply Column, but I have not as yet heard what these people will tell us, as I wish to confirm or check the picture as much as possible as to the incriminating evidence by witnesses for the prosecution on the one hand and those for the defense on the other. I wish to conclude my defense by interrogating the defendant in the end, so that I come as near to the objective truth as is possible. For that reason it seems to me to be necessary to have sufficient time to speak first to all of the witnesses when I can get hold of them, and then to set down a final defense.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Whatever reason you give is ample sofar as I am concerned, but I can not help but say that the defendant, if he did not do a certain thing, and he takes the stand and affirms or denies that fact regardless of what the individual's said, and why his story would have to wait until other witnesses and until their story is in, is to me just a little difficult to comprehend, but that, of course, has in no way effected my judgment as to what you intend to do, as at present. It is your intent to present your evidence as you wish, but I could not help to express myself as to my own wonderment why you follow that procedure.
DR. PRIBILLA: I understand your point entirely, Your Honor, but may I say this. There are a number of incidents which we have not been told about, and many are quite unknown to the defendant, because he really was not present but was purely the senior superior officer. Therefore, it is essential to talk to those people who actually had done something, and will be in a position to attempt to clear up the objective state of affairs, so that the defendant who did not the act, but was purely the man responsible for the act will be able to give us his comments.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: The defense will be applied to the accusation, but not to the defendants' witnesses. The defendant is going to answer the accusing witnesses there, but not what the defense witnesses say.
DR. PRIBILLA: But those witnesses will help to merely clear up an incident. Let's assume an incident where Tschentscher was not present, and somebody was shot, carried out by members of the company. Tschentscher tells me I knew nothing about it. Nobody said that he did it himself, but one could say that he should have prevented it, that was his responsibility because be was the commanding officer of the company. Then it seems to me I must clear up that situation, and that is only by a help of all witnesses I can get of what did really happen, and then I shall be able only to come to the question of the responsibility.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: I am certainly not saving any time by talking about it.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you want to put your documents in now, Mr. Robbins?
DR. VON STAKELBERG: May I say one thing about this. If the Tribunal thinks the statement of a defendant is more acceptable by its being made before the witness testifies, I shall be only too happy to call Fanslau before the witnesses come here. I did not act like this because I want to delay the case, or because I am afraid what he might say. What I thought was that my questioning might be more complete if I asked him after the witnesses testify, but I have no other reason at all. I will be quite happy to call him now.
THE PRESIDENT: You are his lawyer. You do it the way you want to.
MR. ROBBINS: If it might be with the agreement of defense counsel and the Tribunal, I simply would propose to introduce the documents which I have marked for identification in Books Nos. 22, 23, 24 and 25, copies of which are in the hands of the defense counsel. Without referring to each individual document, and then if there is some objection to a specific document, if they would advise me as to that, say on Wednesday, perhaps we can clear up that particular objection. There will be another Document Book No. 26, which contains documents, all marked for identification, and then one, two or three additional document books containing rebuttal documents.
At this time I should like to offer the documents in Document Book No. 22.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Mr. Robbins.
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Each one of these documents which you have marked for identification, have all been referred to and used with the witnesses, or in connection with witness testimony, and the defense counsel, I have it, are familiar with each one of those documents which you have marked for identification?
MR. ROBBINS: I think that is correct. So I would like to offer the documents contained in Document Books Nos. 22 through to 25 inclusive, namely, Exhibit No. 522 through to No. 619 in evidence subject to the objections of the defense counsel.
DR. SEIDL: Dr. Seidl for the defendant Oswald Pohl. May it please the Tribunal, among these documents there are the two affidavits given by the witness Dr. Morgen, dated 28th and 29th of January 1947. The document numbers are NO-1900, and NO-1107. As the Court has a ruling that these cases of corruption have nothing to do with the indictment, I object to the admissibility of those two affidavits as evidence, because under the evidentiary circumstances they have no probative value.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, inasmuch as the Tribunal has read both affidavits several times, and discussed them with counsel, and, inasmuch as they do contain statements not connected with corruption, they will remain in evidence for whatever they are worth. If they don't say anything that is damaging or incriminating, why no harm is done, but in view of the fact that we have read them backwards and forward, and the witnesses testified about them, they should be in the record.
If there is not further objection, the exhibits offered by the Prosecution will be received in evidence.
Do we have those other books Mr. Robbins? We will have those books, Mr. Robbins?
MR. ROBBINS: We will have all the books here.
THE PRESIDENT: This is up to twenty-five.
MR. ROBBINS: To twenty-five.
THE PRESIDENT: And the defense counsel have their documents?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Is there any one on behalf of the defense wish to offer any document books now?
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Dr. Stakelberg for the defendant Fanslau.
If it please the Tribunal, I should like to offer documents. I am quite sure that the translation of the documents has reached the Court. I heard, I know, that there has been a translation of the two books, but I am not sure whether Your Honors have already received your copies.
THE PRESIDENT: We will go look for them.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: If the Tribunal please, as Fanslau's Exhibit No. 1 I wish to offer an affidavit by Ernst Borsum. This affidavit was taken in the camp at Dambacherstrasse at Nuernberg. It says Borsum said he was formerly a colleague of the defendant Fanslau, and gives his capacity and duty. It is merely a supplemental statement to that of the witness Stein, who was also a colleague of the defendant Fanslau. These two statements together give a survey of the activity of the defendant Fanslau in the WVHA. I should like to draw Your Honor's attention to the fact that here again it is expressed that these tasks of Office Group D were not part of A-V, and particularly the scope of work in A-V-IV. It existed on paper only. It was done by Office Group D. Under paragraph 3 in this affidavit it states that the activity in Office A-V was not concerned with the direction of the personnel, but merely taking care of personnel data. Now, under IV it states that all personnel matters did not presuppose any knowledge of what the other office groups and officers did. The next paragraphs are of a more specific nature. Particularly under paragraph V, which says that nothing was known about Globocnik, and no administrative personnel was transferred to Globocnik's administration. This supplements once more there what the witness Stein has told us.
As Fanslau's Exhibit No. 2 I have to offer an affidavit which contains statements of twelve men of the Waffen-SS, and their participation in the training course of the Waffen-SS. Important here is the statement that the topics of these training courses concerned payment, regulations about pay and expenses, traveling expenses, food services, clothing services, accommodation service, exchequer and accounting, social welfare and legal training, and that the concentration camp service was not part of the school. These courses, as I said before, were similar to those given by the Army administration, as far as the defendant Fanslau was concerned. It seems to me to be important that at the end of the training courses he gave talks and that here he told newly appointed officers that when they were promoted, for instance, they had not increased privileges, but increased duties, after they were commissioned. That when in active service they should look after the welfare of the simple men in the trenches, and as assistant of the commanding officers they should take care of the interest of the troops. In the end he exerted the participants with the result the courses had in assiduity, honorableness, justice, self-control, and chivalrousness, and to set themselves up as an example.
As Fanslau's Exhibit No. 3 I wish to submit an affidavit by Wilhelm Karius, which more or less confirms the explanation set forth just now, and gives more detail about these things.
Fanslau's Exhibit No. 4 will be an affidavit by Reinhold GerkeReinecke, who also says the same thing about these training courses.
Defendant Fanslau's Exhibit No. 5 will be an affidavit by Dr. Gerhard Hoffmann, who took part in the 21st military training course of the Leader School, and made statements about that course.
The next document will be Exhibit No. 6, which is an affidavit by Wilhelm Karius concerning a lecture at Berlin for a training course for administrative officers. Karius confirms therein that within a training course of administrative officials he was given an order by the Military Academy at Koenigsaal to speak about the organization of the troop administration of the Waffen SS. He worked on that lecture and the affidavit makes statements about it.
The next document will be Exhibit Fanslau No. 7. This is an affidavit by Hermann Pister, and it amounts to a correction of the affidavit submitted by the Prosecution of 3 March 1947. In the statement of 3 March 1947 Pister had made a few remarks about his meetings with the Defendant Fanslau which were incorrect. These remarks are corrected here. He did not meet Fanslau in 1936 but in October 1938 on the special train, Heinrich not as he said before, as the man in charge of the food services, but as the commanding officer. It says first the Defendant Fanslau did not take part in the meeting of commandants, which Pister mentions, but he has probably confused that meeting with a later meeting at a dinner where no official matters were discussed. And finally the Defendant Fanslau, when the Weimar-Buchenwald Railway was opened, he did not appear as Pohl's representative. Kammler was the man who deputized for Pohl on that occasion.
As my next document, which will be Fanslau Exhibit No. 8, I wish to offer an affidavit by Fanslau's brother. That statement shows that the brother of the Defendant Fanslau, before the defendant became a prisoner of war, talked with him about the atrocities which were then becoming known. The defendant Fanslau on that occasion spoke about these publications with the utmost surprise and believed at the time that they could only be enemy propaganda or something of the sort. To prove the fact that Fanslau did not feel himself to be incriminated by these publications, it is confirmed here that defendant Fanslau after these conversations volunteered to become a prisoner of war, because as he said, he felt himself free of all guilt.
The next document will be Fanslau Exhibit No. 9, and this is a supplementary affidavit by Herbert Fanslau, the brother. This shows the friendly relations between defendant Fanslau and Martin Levy, a member of the Jewish race. That friendship continued to go on even after the new racial laws had been promulgated, and it would have been necessary for the Defendant Fanslau to take up an attitude in accordance with these racial theories if he would ever have been convinced of the positive value of the racial theories.
My next document, Fanslau Exhibit No. 10, will be an affidavit by Elsa Pleil. Elsa Pleil was a Jehovah's witness and still is, and for that reason was arrested by the Gestapo at Karlsbad the course of their operations and committed to Ravensbrueck concentration camp. From there she was, at the beginning of 1944, transferred by assistance of the Labor Exchange and told to work in the household of defendant Fanslau. Fraulein Pleil is therefore in a position to make statements from her close personal knowledge of the defendant and his home life, and she confirms that Herr Fanslau was a kind man, that he was tolerant in every sense of the word, and that he did not raise any difficulties when she wanted to do her special studies as a Jehovah's witness, and that in particularly he made every effort to be a good family man. Fraulein Pleil confirms that she regarded it as a special mercy of fate to be sent to Fanslau's home after her difficult time in the concentration camp.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Where is this affiant now, Dr. Von Stakelberg?
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Fraulein Pleil was in Furth sometime ago. I don't know where she is at the present moment, but she gave this statement to me here in the court. I am inclined to assume that she still is in Furth. Furth is only half an hour's distance from here.
My next document will be Fanslau Exhibit 11, and it will be an affidavit by Frau Lutz. Frau Lutz is the sister-in-law of the defendant Fanslau and has been mentioned by the defendant himself on direct examination.
Frau Lutz is of Jewish descent, and she confirms in summation how kind and tolerant Fanslau was towards her. He was her husband's best man at their wedding in 1935, and that also he assisted Frau Lutz when her father-in-law, Alban Lutz, died. He achieved on that occasion that the mother-in-law of Frau Lutz did not have to sell her chemist shop immediately, and therefore did not lose her claim, and finally that defendant Fanslau, as he has said himself on direct examination, did everything for Lutz, the husband, when he was arrested, and that with great courage he opposed any intentions of Frau Lutz to have a divorce.
The affidavits so far are concerned with Fanslau's activities in connection with personal matters. Now we have a number of document of a more general nature and of legal nature. The next document will he Fanslau Exhibit No. 12. That is the well known secrecy order, which should he adequately known to the Court.
Defense Exhibit Fanslau No. 13 will be an extract from the Reich Penal Code to which I shall when I shall comment on the question of nulla poena sine lege. As Defense Fanslau Exhibit No. 14 there is a statement on essential human rights, and here I should like to draw attention particularly to article IX concerning retroactive laws. It reads:
"No one shall be convicted of crime except for violation of a law in effect at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offense nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that applicable at the time of the commission of the offense."
I should also like to have reference here to the commentary attached to it, which will be on page 5 of the German book, where it is said that regulations of that sort are part of the constitutions of thirty nations.
The next document, which is Exhibit No. 15, I shall submit an extract from an expert opinion given by the International Court in The Hague of 1935 which deals with the question of nullum crimen sine lege.
May I have special reference here to the fundamental remark in the last but one paragraph before the actual opinion begins. There it says that the problem of suppressing a crime can be tackled from two different points of view, one from the point of view of the individual and from the point of view of the community. In the first case the aim is to protect the individual from the state. That aim is expressed in the principle of nullum crimen sine lege. The second point of view, however, has the aim of protecting the community against the criminal. That rests of the principle of nullum crimen sine poena. The regulation of 29 August 1935 rests on the latter conception, the Danzig Constitution on the other hand, on the former, because the Constitution is taken up also, apart from the thirty constitutions I have already mentioned, by the German Constitution of the 11 August 1919, and as my next document, which will be Fanslau Exhibit No. 16, I should like to submit an extract from that Constitution, namely Article XVI, which reads: "A deed can be punished only if the punishment was provided by law before the deed was committed." A similar regulation is contained in the Constitution of the Free State of Bavaria of 1946.
As Defense Fanslau Exhibit No. 17, I should like to submit the Article 104 which reads: "A deed can only be punished if the degree of punishment has been laid down by law before the act was committed."
The same principle can be found in the law of Military Government for Germany No. 1, Article IV, Paragraph 7. As Defense Exhibit No. 18 I wish to submit an extract from that law, and would like to draw attention to first the first phase of paragraph 7. "Accusation can only be raised and sentence be pronounced and punishment inflicted if and when a law is in force, when the act was committed definitely declares that act to be an offense."
Now, the next document which will be Fanslau Exhibit No. 19, is an extract from the verdict of the IMT which concerns criminal organization and punishment for membership in a criminal organization. In particular I should like to have reference to the recommendations given by the IMT in that respect, first that as far as possible the classifications sanctions and punishment should be the same in the four zones of occupation in Germany, and that uniformity should be recognized as a principle.
Secondly, Law No. 10, to which reference has been made before, says that punishment can be left within the decision of the court, even including the competence of inflicting the supreme penalty. The De-Nazification Law of 5 March, 1946 applicable for Bayern, GrossHessen, and Wuerttenberg-Baden provides certain punishment for all classes of criminals. The Tribunal recommends that those punishments inflicted on the basis of Military Control Law No. 10 concerning a member of a criminal organization must not be higher than those decided on by the Do-Nazification law.
My next exhibit now will be Defense Exhibit No. 20, which will be an extract from the De-Nazification law which deals with the various punishments applicable to the various classes of defendants concerned. May I point out in this connection that according to Article XV against so-called main guilt persons, they are to be committed to a labor camp for a period of time between two and ten years, for what they call incriminated persons, labor camp up to five years, and I should like to point out that a difference is applicable here between labor camp and prison, that the punishment is not that the person is sent to prison. He is merely being sent to a labor camp.
That brings me to the end of Book No. I. Book No. II will contain three affidavits. Should I submit those on some other occasion?
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead now.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Defense Exhibit Fanslau No. 21 will be an affidavit by Rudolf Klotz which confirms what we have been told before by Defendant Fanslau's brother, namely that Defendant Fanslau volunteered to become a prisoner of war, and that immediately he gave his full name and rank, which as I shall explain later on, is another proof of his good conscience.
Defense Exhibit No. 22 will be an affidavit by Doris Levi, who is a Jewess, and she speaks about her good relations to the defendant and his whole family.
A particular impressive document will be Defense Exhibit No. 23, which is an affidavit by Hans Rechenberg whose testimony should touch upon the inability of Fanslau to commit such atrocities as Otto has talked about. Here it says that the Defendant Fanslau was strictly opposed and spoke strictly against the pogroms committed against the Jews.
THE PRESIDENT: Other defense counsel will have their document books ready to present beginning tomorrow morning in whatever order you like, but all the document books that are ready will be presented tomorrow.
We will recess until nine-thirty.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until nine-thirty tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 26 August 1946, at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Oswald Pohl, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 26 August 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Robert M. Toms, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Take your seats, please.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Dr. Rauschenbach for defendant August Frank.
If the Tribunal please, I shall now offer my document book No. 1 on behalf of August Frank.
THE PRESIDENT: Do we have it; has it been distributed?
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: If you have not got it yet, I have bought some copies along with me.
Documents Nos. 1 and 2 are not contained in this document book. They will be an appendix to my opening statement and as such have been distributed and have been given Exhibit Nos 1 and 2. I shall therefore start with No. 3. I shall start with Document No. 3 which will become Exhibit No. 3. This document is the well-known Fuehrer order about secrecy and no comments are necessary.
Document No. 4 I shall offer as Exhibit No. 4, and this is an excerpt from the verdict of the I.M.T. to which I shall make reference in my final statement. It is connected with the separation between the administrative activity and the actual activities connected with labor allocation and the inmates of the concentration camps. According to this excerpt from the I.M.T. verdict, those agencies in the RSHA which were dealing only with administrative matters were not condemned. I shall draw a comparison between that and the WVHA.
Document No. 5 is offered as Exhibit No. 5, and I am submitting it with reference to Exhibit 75 of the Prosecution which is Document NO-2327 in Document Book III of the Prosecution.
There the former camp commandant, Pfister, stated that Frank and Hans Loerner; whose counsel, I also am, were present at the conference of the camp commandants. In this affidavit now offered by me he states as follows:
"On behalf of others, who are under indictment there, I have already declared under oath, that I erroneously called joint suppers and conferences of Commanders one event, whereas they should be described as separate ones. The Chiefs of the Amtsgruppen and the Amt Chiefs, among them August Frank and both the Loerners, did not take part in the conferences of the Commanders."
Documents No. 6 and 7, which I shall offer as Exhibits 6 and 7, are related to the use made of Jewish property with which August Frank has been charged. Document 6 shows that according to orders given by the Supreme Head of the Soviet Military Administration the German civilian population also had to hand over all gold and silver and foreign currency.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Doctor, is the date correct on this order, 25th of July, 1945?
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Yes, it is. Yes, your Honor, this is a copycertified by me - of the publication of the staff of the Soviet Military Administration.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: I asked you because that was after the capitulation, 25th of July 1945.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Yes, it was after the capitulation.
Exhibit No. 7 is the German regulation concerning the treatment of property belonging to nationals of the former Polish state. It is dated 7 December 1940. From there it becomes clear that the seizure of Jewish property of all types was carried out by the Chairman of the Ministerial Council for the Reich Defense Ministry, Goering, and not by the WVHA.
The following documents, 8, 9 and 10, which I offer as Exhibits 8, 9 and 10 deal with the last few months prior to the capitulation and are offered in order to prove and support the statement made by Franck on the witness stand that by not carrying out a Fuehrer order be saved extremely valuable property in Germany. No. 8 has been submitted before the I.M.T. and was submitted on behalf of Speer, which was Hitler's order for destruction of 19 March 1945. The second paragraph reads as follows:
"I order:
"All military traffic, communications, industrial and supply installations as well as objects on Reich territory, which the enemy might immediately or later utilize for the continuation of his fight, are to be destroyed."
In the executive order, which is Document No. 9, these principles are once more made clear, and no doubt it was possible that according to this order of the Fuehrer anything of any value and importance in Germany had to be destroyed.
THE PRESIDENT: What connection does this have with the defendant Frank or his defense?
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: It is not concerned immediately with any count in the indictment, but it proves Frank's innocence in one point. I am offering it in order to show that the Defendant Frank was in no way an obedient follower of the Fuehrer. He was quite capable of acting sensibly and reasonably.
THE PRESIDENT: This is March of 1945?
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Yes, quite. Now Speer, who has been sentenced by the I.M.T. has given an affidavit about all this, and he describes Frank's participation in refusing to carry out the order. On Page 1 of Speer's affidavit he says first of all that Frank, in his then capacity as Chief of the Army Administration Office, was charged by Hitler with the administration of all supply depots, clothing depots, food depots of the whole of the Wehrmacht and the Todt Organization.