This affidavit comes to a conclusion that in actual practice from a point of view of political taxation and the supply of taxation, not even the Lebensborn would have had anything left at all. The affidavit also said what Dr. Hohberg already must have known as to him, and any other consequence at the time when he made these propositions. For the rest I might point out that this intention was never taken seriously but thrown into the wastepaper basket.
My last document is in Supplemental Book II, and this document NO. 80 which I now offer as Exhibit No. 75. I offer this document for the reason of Hohberg's knowledge about the incidents in Auschwitz, which he tried to pass on to many people that on those occasions, as the document describes, he rendered a risk of arrest by the Gestapo. This concludes the presentation of documents on behalf of the Defendant Hohberg.
DR. GAWLIK: Dr. Gawlik for the defendants Bobermin and Volk. If the Tribunal please, I shall first present documents for the defendant Bobermin, which are in document book I, and the supplementary volume, as well as a single document which has not been translated as yet, as it is a copy of the IMT transcript.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Do you have two document books for Bobermin?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: And one for Volk?
DR. GAWLIK: There are two document books for Volk, and three supplements.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you have for Volk, Dr. Gawlik, one document book?
DR. GAWLIK: Two document books.
THE PRESIDENT: The first one contains Documents one to twentynine?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, quite so.
THE PRESIDENT: Now do you have another book?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, Documents thirty-two to forty.
THE PRESIDENT: We have not got it. For Bobermin, what do you have?
DR. GAWLIK: For Bobermin I have one document book with Documents one through thirteen. And another document book with documents fourteen through twenty-three.
THE PRESIDENT: That is right, we have those. How many documents in your second book for Volk?
DR. GAWLIK: In the second document book there are documents thirty-two through forty. Nine documents altogether, and then there are three isolated documents as supplement, in addition.
THE PRESIDENT: We have not received the second Volk book. The Secretary-General does not have the book, either. That is the second volume of Volk.
DR. GAWLIK: If the Tribunal please, I have not received the English translation of Document Book II, although I have received the supplement. I submitted it to the translation section a long time ago, and I frequently talked to Captain Rice about this, of the Defense Information Center, and he promised me that the document books would be here in time.
I could not do anything else because I am not allowed to contact the translation section myself.
THE PRESIDENT: Well go ahead with what you have, but one of your books is not here.
DR. GAWLIK: I shall start with documents on behalf of Dr. Hans Bobermin. I would like to draw the Court's attention to the fact that as SS Exhibit No. 1, I had already submitted document No. 13. Exhibit Bobermin No. 2, I offer as document Bobermin's No 17. This is an affidavit by Georg Gercks of 15 August 1947, pages 40 to 44 of the English Document Book. Gercke from January 1940 until the end of the war worked with Dr. Bobermin. He testified and said that Dr. Bobermin did not seize the brick works, but they were seized by the Main Administrative Agency, East. Then he makes a statement about the fact that considerable sums of money were invested in the brick works of which he mentioned the sum of forty million marks. He then testified about the fact that no forced labor was used, that the workers and employees were all free workers, and that conditions were the same as those under which German workers were employed. He then testified about the fact that Bobermin's mode of life was in no sense of the word of a typical SS conduct as alleged by the Prosecution on page 43 of the English Document Book. Gercke's affidavit did not form the impression within the long period of time in which he worked with Bobermin, that his conduct of life was typically SS, but that it was not a typical SS conduct; that he conducted himself as a man himself of a private form. He did not follow. Himmler's orders blindly.
Exhibit No. 3 I offer as Bobermin's Document No. 18 in a supplemental volume on page 45 of the English Book. It is an affidavit by Gottfried Buchartz of 9 August 1947. Buchartz was with Dr. Bobermin from October 1940 until the end of the war, in the Eastern German Construction Material Works. He speaks on the subject and says that in the enterprise, or that firm, no inmates or force labor were used, and they were all free workers; that the conditions were the same for the German and Polish workers and employees.
That Dr. Bobermin, Buchartz stated, started a system of Polish Workers travelling expenses and soforth, and he makes also a statement about which the Tribunal may see when he said that Dr. Bobermin did not seize any enterprise; that this was done by the Main Trusteeship Agency East.
He then testifies about the topic of looting. He says on page 47 that these enterprises had not been looted, but particularly nothing was dismantled. Considerable sums of money, on the other hand, were invested, and he says this sum of money was somewhere between ten and twelve million marks.
He then speaks about the Reinhardt Aktion, that these sums, the credit of 1,200,000 zloyts did not come from the Reinhardt Action, and Dr. Bobermin did not know where the money came from.
As Exhibit Bobermin No. 4 I submit Document Bobermin 22 in the supplementary book, an affidavit by Reinhold Stechemesser of 13 August 1947, on Page 61 to 63, the English Document Book. Stechemesser also was an employee in the Eastern German Construction Material Works for many years, as from 1 April 1940. I want to prove by this affidavit that in the plants of that enterprise there were no concentration camp inmates or forced labor used. Stechemesser also confirms the conditions among which workers worked were the same as the rest of Germany. They were subject to the same prohibition concerning type of work, hours of work and extent of work. He testifies then on Page 63 of the English Document Book that Dr. Bobermin did not seize the enterprises and that they were all of them enterprises seized by the Main Trusteeship Agency East. Inasmuch as owners were available they were employed in the enterprises as skilled workers and compensated accordingly. He testifies about the question that these enterprises were not plundered or looted.
Exhibit Bobermin No. 14 in the supplementary volume, on Page 33 through 36. Herta Zibolsky was Bobermin's secretary for a long period of time. She testifies first about the fact that only voluntary workers worked in the Eastern German Construction Material Works, particularly that no forced labor was used. She then speaks about conditions of work and testifies that Dr. Bobermin never worked on any concentration camp matters, that he never entered even a concentration camp, and gives detailed reason why she is in a position to say so. She says that Dr. Bobermin gave an extensive report about any trip made, which she took down, and therefore she would have known if Dr. Bobermin went to a concentration camp. She then testifies to the fact that Dr. Bobermin never seized any Jewish property, and then testifies about the credit in the Reinhardt Action and says that the agency did not know what the term "Action Reinhardt" stood for, and in particular Dr. Bobermin did not. She then testifies about the way the Polish workers were dealt with in the enterprises of the Eastern Construction Material Works, particularly that they were treated entirely satisfactorily, and at the end she says as far as the statement by the Prosecution is concerned that the SS was in, that Dr. Bobermin did not model his conduct or life on SS principles, that he was not a fanatical National Socialist, and gives detailed reasons therefore.
As Bobermin Document No. 6 - I beg your pardon, Exhibit No. 6, I submit Document Bobermin No. 1 in Document Book 1. This is an affidavit by Josef Opperbeck of 20 June, 1947, on Pages 1 to 3 of the English Document Book. Opperbeck testified under Roman I that Dr. Bobermin was a member of the mounted SS, the Reiter-SS. Under Paragraph 2 he says that the enterprises of the Eastern German Construction Material Works were not directed by Dr. Bobermin at that time, and that he did not have the authority to seize. He then testifies to the fact that up to the middle of 1941 Dr. Salpeter was the man who was in charge. I wish to prove by that Dr. Bobermin did not have the power to prevent any measures from being taken. Opperbeck then speaks about the fact that Main Department III-A, Office W had no contact with concentration camps and that particularly in the enterprises of III-A/4, that is to say the Eastern German Construction Material Works, never employed inmates or forced labor.
Exhibit Bobermin No. 7 I submit Document No. 7 in Document Book -
THE PRESIDENT: The sound tape is just about to expire. There is about one minute left, so we will take a recess now while they change the tape.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. GAWLIK: As Exhibit Bobermin No. 7 I would like now to introduce Document Bobermin No. 7. It is on page 18 of Document Book No. 1. This is a first decree concerning the execution of the decree issued by the Fuehrer for the organization of the Eastern territories. As Exhibit Bobermin No. 8. I am introducing Bobermin No. 8. This is a decree of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor concerning the branches and administration of the Eastern territories. Page 20 to 21 of the English Document Book.
With these two documents I want to prove that field was enacted by international law. I shall come back to that in my final plea and make a few more detailed statements.
As Exhibit No. 9 I would like to introduce Document Bobermin No. 9. It is on page 22 and goes on to page 24 of the English document book. This is a publication about the German-Russian friendship and frontier agreement as well as the supplement dated the 30th of December 1939. Some of the building firms were in the Eastern territories. This new frontier had been recognized by Russia. I would like to draw particular attention of this Tribunal to Articles 1 and 2 of this Friendship and Frontier agreement. Article 1 -- where the German Reich government and the government of the USSR admit and set the line which is contained in the map attached thereto and described in a document which is attached and describes the matter. In Article 2 it is stated that both parties agree to the boundaries contained in Article 1, and they consider it final for the interests of both parties, and they will not agree to an interference of a third party in those matters. The agreement was signed for the USSR by Molotoff.
THE PRESIDENT: What has it to do with Bobermin? What has it to do with Bobermin in this indictment?
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, Bobermin is now being charged with having property which was within that territory looted and that, therefore, he committed violations of the Hague Convention. If this territory was annexed legally then the Hague Convention agreements did not apply there as far as the occupational forces were concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't understand. You said if this territory was what? Annexed?
DR. GAWLIK: Annexed, yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I see. All right.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I am trying to prove that it was no longer an occupied territory according to the sense of the Hague Convention, but was part of the Reich territory, also recognized by Russia -- namely, by this agreement concerning the frontier between Germany and Russia.
THE PRESIDENT: That is, Germany and Russia agreed that Germany should have part of Poland?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, indeed, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't notice Poland's signature on this agreement.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, then perhaps let refer to Oppenheimer, who was a very famous international law expect. Oppenheimer's latest book which was printed in 1945 is speaking of the following:-
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, I didn't mean to lead you into your argument at this time. Let us go on with the documents and then you can argue that point later at the proper time.
DR. GAWLIK: All I wanted to say, your Honor, was that in the international law it was not necessary to have an agreement with the annexed country - for the annexation - to be legal. I never did know any exception in which those annexed actually agreed to such an annexation. Therefore, it is not necessary to have the agreement of the annexed country before it can be annexed. Oppenheimer says that the annexed country can protest, but, speaking from an international law point of view, this does not make any difference.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
DR. GAWLIK: Then I would like to introduce as Exhibit No. 10, Document Bobermin No. 10. Document Bobermin No. 10, which is the decree for the introduction of the Four-Year-Plan in the Eastern territories, on page 45; and as Exhibit No. 11, a decree concerning the handling of property belonging to citizens of the former Polish state, which can be found on pages 26 to 29.
With these two documents I wish to prove that Dr. Bobermin, in Office W-2 and the WVHA, generally speaking, had no right whatever to carry out any seizures. I would like to draw the Tribunal's attention to paragraph 12 of document Bobermin No. 11. In this paragraph it is stated there who was responsible for the seizures, namely the manager of the Four-Year-Plan, the Main Trusteeship Department East.
As Exhibit No. 12 I would like to introduce Bobermin Document No. 19, in the supplement. The other documents refer to the Golloschau question.
Document No. 19 is an affidavit by Richard Goebel dated 30 August 1947. It is on pages 50 to 56 of the supplement. Goebel was the works manager of the Portland Cement and Aktiengesellschaft, namely, Golloschau, the only plant where, since 1933, concentration camp inmates were used.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Goebel first of all states that Herr Dr. Bobermin did not suggest the employment of concentration camp inmates; that he did not even order it, but that Dr. Bobermin had asked that the plant cease operations. Thereupon, Herr Pohl refused to have the factories cease operations and ordered the employment of concentration camp inmates. Works Manager Goebel furthermore states that labor camp in Golleschau was under the sole administration and responsibility of the concentration camp of Auschwitz; that neither any of the members of the plant nor the Works Manager Goebel himself had the right to visit the camp without being accompanied by the camp commander. The camp commandantur and the guard personnel had been assigned by the concentration camp of Auschwitz, and the administration of the plant and the members of the administration of the plant did not have any right to give or issue any orders to the guard personnel or the camp administration.
Goebel makes a few more statements concerning the conditions under which the inmates worked in Golleschau. They worked along with German free workers; and the most difficult work was carried out by the free workers because these people had to be skilled personnel, as Goebel states in detail. Then it was also stated that the inmates in Golleschau were in no way abused. The Works Manager Goebel gives a reason for that and proves it by citing the production figures. From eight to nine hundred inmates and from 250 to 300 free workers produced approximately the same as at the time when only 350 to 400 free workers worked before.
Goebel makes a few more statements, he says that only CC commanders were responsible for the food and the feeding of the inmates alone. He then states that while the inmates were being employed in the plant, they were never mistreated nor killed. He says that Dr. Bobermin visited the plant only two or three times during the period of time during which inmates were being employed there. He furthermore states that he, the works manager, at no time gave or sent reports to Herr Court No. II, Case No. 4.Dr. Bobermin that inmates were mistreated or were killed.
He couldn't do that for the very simple reason that such acts were not committed in Golleschau.
As Exhibit Number 13 I would like to introduce Document Bobermin Number 3, which is in Document Book Number I.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE PHILLIPS): I thought Bobermin Exhibit Number 12 was Document Number 12 and that the Exhibit Number 19 was Exhibit Number 13.
DR. GAWLIK: No, your Honor, Exhibit Number 12 is Document Bobermin Number 19, the affidavit by Richard Goebel.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE PHILLIPS): What is the exhibit number for Document Number 12?
DR. GAWLIK: Document Number 12 was not introduced as yet.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE PHILLIPS): I beg your pardon.
DR. GAWLIK: I shall now proceed to Exhibit Number 13, which will become Document Bobermin Number 3, in Document Book Number 19, on Pages 6 to 8. That is the affidavit by Paul Dorn, dated the 2nd of July 1947. I would appreciate it if great attention be paid to this statement because this is a statement given by a former inmate of the concentration camp of Auschwitz. That inmate made statements about the conditions at Golleschau. He stated: "I know almost all the plants where inmates of the protective custody camp Auschwitz were working (6 - 8). The cement plant at Golleschau as compared with other plants was considered to be one of the good plants among the inmates of the concentration camp at Auschwitz." Further, he stated that he never saw anything bad about the living and working conditions of the inmates at the cement factory in Golleschau, nor did he hear about anything of the sort. Then he stated that the plant at Golleschau did everything in its power to better the living and working conditions of the inmates employed there. This is the statement by a former inmate who was at Buchenwald before. That is the reason why he has a very Court No. II, Case No. 4.good knowledge of the conditions of the concentration camps and why he is in a position to give a good description of the conditions at the plant of Golleschau.
As Exhibit Number 14 I should like to introduce Document Bobermin Number 2. This is an affidavit by Willy Burger. I want to prove by that Office W/II at no time had a delegate in a concentration camp and that Dr. Bobermin did not cooperate with Amtsgruppe D. The following documents will refer to the Hungarian question and to the activity of Dr. Bobermin in Hungary.
As Exhibit Number 15 I should like to introduce Document Bobermin Number 24, which is an excerpt, your Honor. I don't believe you have this document, your Honor. It's nothing but an excerpt from one of the records of a session of the International Military Tribunal on 3 January 1946; and the translation was not granted me. It was refused, the statement being made to me that the records are never translated. However, I considered this record very important. It is testimony given by Vita Wislizeni to prove that Dr. Bobermin did not participate in the measures against the Jews in any way. In that record Wislizeni made very clear statements as to who had carried out those measures against the Jews in Hungary. At the time he stated that a certain man by the name of Eichmann committed those things. He said that Eichmann, the man in charge of Department IV/A/4 of the Reich Security Main Office, RSHA, Office IV, was the Gestapo.
He also states, and I shall quote: "This sub-department comprised two referate, the matters of the church and the special office for Jewish affairs. That department had to deal with Jewish affairs, then Wislizeni makes correct statements about Hungary. He says that after the German troops marched in to Hungary, Eichman personally, together with a great contingent, went to Hungary. The first measures which Eichmann started in cooperation with Hungarian officials were the concentration of Jews in Hungary in certain places. Under duress at the Court No. II, Case No. 4.beginning they were sent to the Carpatho-Russia, in Siebenbuergen.
He states furthermore that from this situation Eichmann made the following proposal to the Hungarians--that those Jews be sent to Auschwitz and other camps. He wanted to have a special request from the Hungarian government and national courts. That decree was given by Minister Von Becker, and the Hungarian police carried out this evacuation. Those measures are discussed in detail by Wislizeni. Early in the month of March 1944 the so-called Einsatzgruppe of the Security Police and the Security Service was organized in Mauthausen and Linz. Eichmann himself had a Sondereinsatzkommando, a special task commando.
I shall quote further: "Eichmann's activities in Hungary dealt with all the matters in connection with the Jewish question. Eichmann also reported directly to Berlin, either to Gruppenfuehrer Mueller or, in important cases, to the Chief of the Security Police Kaltenbrunner." Then Wislizeni stated that he was asked the following question, first of all.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO): Dr. Gawlik, how much do you intend to quote from this? It seems to me you are giving us considerable quotation from the record of the IMT. Can't you just refer us to that?
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I shall try to do so. I have only one more thing to point out.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO): If it is something brief, that's all right; but I thought it might be many more pages.
DR. GAWLIK: Then Wislizeni stated the following, that all those measures against the Jews in Hungary, and particularly the transportation and evacuation to Hungary, were carried out by this one Eichmann, who was under Mueller's orders. Eichmann had these measures carried out by this Sondereinsatzkommando near Mauthausen. This document therefore shows quite clearly that Bobermin did not participate in those matters in any way.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
As Exhibit Number 16 I should like to introduce Document Bobermin Number 15. It is an affidavit by one Ernst Kienast, dated the 20th of August 1947, Page 37 of the supplement. It also refers to Dr. Bobermin's activity in Hungary. This affidavit shows quite clearly that Herr Dr. Bobermin had nothing to do with the deportation of Jews; that these deportations of Jews were carried out by the Sonderkommando, Einsatzkommander Eichmann, under the command of the Security Police in Hungary, in cooperation with the Hungarian government and the Hungarian police. It also shows that no concentration or labor camps existed under German sponsorship in Hungary and that this was not part of the task of Herr Dr. Bobermin as an SS economist.
As Exhibit Number 17 I should like to introduce now Document Bobermin Number 4, which is an affidavit by one Kurt Becher, dated the 27 of June 1947, contained on pages 9 to 13 in Document Book I. This affidavit also refers to Herr Dr. Bobermin's activity in his capacity as an SS economist in Hungary. Becher gives very exact testimony here; and I should like to prove by this in particular that the tasks and activities of Dr. Bobermin were simply limited to providing the police and SS units with food, PX items, and clothing. Bobermin's activity was similar to that of a supply officer of an army.
Then I should furthermore like to prove by this that Herr Dr. Bobermin was not in charge of any labor or concentration camps in Hungary. This is on Page 12 of the document book. Bobermin had nothing to do with those questions, neither with the camps nor with the carrying out of the deportation of the Jews.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
I should like to introduce as Exhibit Number 18 Document Bobermin Number 12. I want to prove by that that for the protective custody measures the Gestapo was competent only for the entire Reich area and that, effective the 11th of March 1934; so that the SS had nothing to do with issuing a protective custody order, and it was not competent for that matter.
As Exhibit Number 19 I'd now like to introduce Document Bobermin Number 5. As Exhibit Number 20 I'd like to introduce Document Bobermin Number 6. Document Bobermin Number 5 is an affidavit by the former Reich Minister Dr. Hans Heinrich Lammers, dated the 20th of May 1947; and Document Bobermin Number 6 is an affidavit by Herbert Klemm, the former State Secretary, dated the 20th of June 1947. I should like to prove with these two documents, as can be seen from the documents themselves, that Herr Dr. Bobermin joined neither Party nor SS voluntarily but only because of an order issued him by the Higher authorities of the Reich in 1933 and because he was at the time under duress.
The following documents refer to Dr. Bobermin's good name and good character. It is stated there that nobody could possibly expect him to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity; that his attitude was not an SS attitude as charged by the prosecution. Exhibit Number 21, which will be Bobermin Document Number 16, is an affidavit by one Gustav Schneevoigt, dated the 22nd of July 1947. This man today has a very high official position in Berlin and knows Dr. Bobermin personally and knows his political attitude as well. Exhibit Number 22 will be Bobermin Document Number 20, an affidavit by Emil Plonszen, dated 24 July 1947. This also concerns Dr. Bobermin's political attitude. It is stated there that Herr Dr. Bobermin's activity while he was a member of the Main Office Administration of the WHA was nothing but that of an economist and that he in no way carried out any political functions during his activity there.
Exhibit Number 23 is Document Bobermin Number 21, an affidavit by a Jewess by the name of Erna Doerry, dated 7 July 1947, who has Court No. II, Case No. 4.known Bobermin since 1910.
That is the reason why she is in a good position to give a very clear description of his political attitude even after 1939. Exhibit Number 24 will become Bobermin Number 23. This is an affidavit by Louis Wolf, dated 24 July 1947. It also concerns Dr. Bobermin's character and his personal attitude.
I have thus finished my introduction into evidence of documents in connection with the case of Dr. Bobermin. I shall now introduce documents in the case of Dr. Volk. First I'd like to state that Document Book Number II for Dr. Volk, which is not here as yet, was turned in towards the middle of August to the translation department, in other words, three or four weeks ago. I have already introduced three exhibits for Dr. Volk. Again I have my documents here in the exact order in which the events took place.
First of all I should like to introduce as Exhibit Number 4 Document Dr. Volk Number 41, a supplement. This is an individual sheet of paper, an affidavit by Dr. Gerhard Hoffmann, dated 23 August 1947. I don't know whether the Tribunal has that translation. I don't have the English translation myself. Then I should appreciate it if the Tribunal would give me permission to read this in detail or at least speak about it in detail.
THE PRESIDENT: How long is it?
DR. GAWLIK: Eight pages, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: When did you give that in for translation?
DR. GAWLIK: It was written on 23 August and immediately turned over to the translation department. I can't recall the exact date; but I know it was a few days after that, if not immediately after that.
THE PRESIDENT: Nearly a month ago?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, indeed, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Why don't you see if you can get the translation and deliver it to the Tribunal without reading it now? You can do that Court No. II, Case No. 4.at any time within the next week.
Give us a translation of it later.
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, your Honor. Last week I or at least my assistant or my secretary went to see Capt. Rice almost every day. Capt. Rice is the officer in charge of the place, our liaison officer. I have no right to go down to the translation department myself. Capt. Rice told me that up to yesterday all the translations would be here and that he could not do anything else.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, instead of reading it now--it's so long-let's see if we can't get the translation through Capt. Rice, and you can turn it in to the Tribunal any time on within the next week; and then we'll read it in English.
DR. GAWLIK: Very well, your Honor. Gerhard Hoffmann, together with Dr. Volk, worked in the legal department there. His testimony first gives us the fact that Dr. Volk is the man in charge of the legal department of Staff W and only dealt with legal matters. He gives examples, stating that inmate matters were not dealt with there and that the equalization treasury was not under the legal department.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you reading from the affidavit now?
DR. GAWLIK: No, your Honor, I am simply giving you an over-all picture of the contents of the individual subjects of proof. In two sentences I've taken care of the probative value of the first page.
THE PRESIDENT: But it won't help much because we've got to read it when we get the English translation anyway. We have nothing to make any notes on so we can't remember what you are saying. Let it go until we get the English; and then we'll read it. Then we'll have it word for word.
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, your Honor. I thought it would help the Tribunal if at least we had in the record the subjects which I am trying to prove so that when the Tribunal reads the record it can understand what the subjects I am trying to prove are so that the Tribunal will know exactly what I am trying to prove.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: But we won't read the record; we'll read the affidavit. We'll read the whole affidavit.
Then probably the fact is I don't know whether the Tribunal knows what I am trying to prove in my affidavit, but I am quite sure it will help the Tribunal to understand this affidavit, then the Tribunal can tell from the record just what I am trying to prove.
THE PRESIDENT: We thought that you would tell us that in your argument?
DR. GAWLIK: Well, of course, I can not very well state individual subjects, which I am trying to prove here in an argument; I can not very well bring that up; after all I can only use forty-five minutes in my argument. I am restricted, and I don't believe I can be through in an hour and a half.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought, probably, you would be through now if I had not interrupted you, so go ahead.
DR. GAWLIK: As the next exhibit, I would like to introduce Document Volk's No. 440. This is Exhibit No. 5. The Tribunal probably does not have the translation of this document, either. May it please Your Honors, would it be more suitable if my colleague Dr. Foreschmann, should introduce his document first, and at noon I'll try to see De. Rice and see whether the second document book is available.
THE PRESIDENT: That is a very good idea, and agreeable to us. Dr. Foreschmann.
DR. FORESCHMANN: Dr. Foreschmann of the defendant Mummenthey. Your Honors, this is Document Book No. 4 Supplement numbers 2 and 3
JUDGE PHILLIPS: I have here, Dr. Foreschmann, document book No. 4, Supplement I, and Supplement 2, Now do you have another?
DR. FORESCHMANN: Your Honor, I already introduced the two documents the last time concerning the Krysiak case.