Is that answer of yours to be understood to the effect that the words, "And therefore for the concentration camps" are a deduction or a conclusion on your part which actually originates in the sentence before in which you state that Eirenschmalz had to provide the funds and had the funds for the contructions of the Waffen SS or by that did you mean furthermore that you know that Eirenschmalz approved the maintenance of the concentration camps?
A May I make a statement as to that. In the Spring of 1940 I in my capacity as Construction Manager in Buchenwald wrote as application to the Administrative Office of the concentration camp with reference to the maintenance of the buildings. I had to check the amounts. That was the reason why I assumed that all the constructions of the Waffen SS and those of the concentration camps were paid by the maintenance funds of Office C-VI.
Q Witness, you just got into the wrong year. That is you just mentioned in the Spring of 1940, I, etc. etc., and I would like to point out to you, Witness, that Office C-VI, and to be exact, even the the WVHA, were only established in 1942. Therefore, that conclusion stating in 1940 was in now way correct and cannot coincide with Eirenschmalz' activity in the WVHA. Now then, can you give us an explanation for 1940?
A Well, I can't give you anything about 1942, because in December, 1941, I was transferred to the Russian Middle Sector and ever since then I didn't come back to Germany until the capitulation.
Q Then I shall ask you how is it possible that you said in your affidavit dated the 5th of March, 1947 that you stated certain facts about things you simply couldn't know?
AAt that time I agreed with my examiner that the three main offices, the Economic Office, SS Main Office, Budget and Construction, and the WVHA were considered the same or could at least be called the same, although the organizational charts differed with each one of those agencies.
Q In other words, you wish to refute your statement. You want to waive your statement in your affidavit?
A On the basis of the dates which you just stated, Defense Counsel, which dates I didn't know at my examination and therefore I only answered according to the best of my knowledge and belief, I can only say with reference to 1942, during which time I was no longer in Germany, I just can't stick to my affidavits.
Q In this connection, I would like to speak about the second affidavit which you wrote. That is the affidavit dated the 20th of February, 1947. No, I think I wanted the other one. Let's see now. Yes.
Q. Let's speak about the first one again. In your affidavit dated the 5th of March 1947 you stated furthermore, and I quote, "If therefore, gas chambers or crematories or any other concentration camp installations needed a repair or maintenance, then it was known to Eirenschmalz and that through the accounts which he had to check and approve for payment." Here again you are speaking of a period of time which can only be actually true as of the 1st of February 1942 because prior to that time the WVHA had not been established.
Now, let me just finish my sentence before you go on. I should like to ask you again, how was it that you gave such a statement? In particularly, what were your points from which you started? What were the points that actually led you to see how things developed when checking the accounts?
A. I knew from the time prior to 1941 that all accounts concerning building maintenance had to be sent to Berlin. However, I did state while I was examined and told my examiner that, considering the enormous amount of vouchers and accounts which came in, it was impossible for Eirenschmalz to know every one of those accounts because he had a large staff of checkers and auditers.
Q. May I interrupt you? Did you know at all where those final accounts concerning this maintenance were sent to?
A. At that time when I was in Germany they were all sent to Office C VI.
Q. Witness, you're still getting mixed up in those years. You just said, "At my time when I was in Germany they were taken care of by Office C VI." Now, I want to draw your attention to the fact again that WVHA was only established the 1st of February 1942 and that therefore you were no longer in Germany.
A. Yes, that's right. I wasn't in Germany then.
Q. Then give us another explanation with reference to this sentence. What do you know about the point that Eirenschmalz could gain an insight into the repair work carried out on gas chambers or crematories from the vouchers.
A. Then I should like to ask you what year you are talking about.
Q. I shall repeat. I am talking about the period of time from the 1st of February 1942 on.
A. Well, then I can't give you any information.
Q. Then I must ask you the same question again. How was it possible that on the 5th of March 1947 you made such a statement in your affidavit?
A. For the simple reason I got all the years mixed up.
Q. Witness, do you waive both statements of your affidavits, particularly those statements contained in the affidavit which are erroneous?
A. On the basis of the fact that the years have changed--well I believe that I have to refute those statements.
DR. VON STEIN: Thank you, your Honors. No further questions. Now that the witness has just said that he refutes those statements I think I am through. Oh, just one more question, please, your Honor. Just one question more.
BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. Witness, do you know if Eirenschmalz built the barracks in Thuringia or, rather, if he had to approve them; or do you think that also is a mistake on your part?
A. As far as Riedl told me that, yes.
Q. Well, Witness, what can you tell us from your own knowledge? Apparently nothing.
A. I explicitly stated that I had never been to Eirenschmalz's agency, nor did I ever receive any direct orders from Eirenschmalz.
Q. From your affidavit, of course I couldn't understand all these statements which you made today.
A. Yes, but they're in the record.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness, what position did you hold in February 1942?
A. I didn't understand the question. Would you repeat, please?
Q. What position did you hold in February 1942?
A. I was construction inspector, Russia, Medium Sector.
Q. In that position to whom were you subordinate in the WVHA?
A. I was subordinate to the chief of office himself and personally, Dr. Kammler.
Q. When were you placed in this position as Bauinspektor? Russia?
A. That was in December 1941.
Q. You remained in that position until when?
A. Until March 1944.
Q. During that time from December 1941 to March 1944, did you have any conversations with Kammler?
A. Yes, approximately every six months.
Q. Did you discuss the organization of the WVHA at any time with Kammler?
A. I didn't quite understand that.
Q. Did you ever at any time discuss the organization of the WVHA, the organization of Amtsgruppe C, with Kammler?
A. No, I just touched upon those things. The organization was discussed early in 1942, in April, as I have told you before. After that we just discussed the additions in the organization chart. Before then the construction inspectorates in Russia were informed in writing about those changes.
Q. You knew at that time, in February 1942, that Eirenschmalz was chief of C VI, did you not?
A. Yes, indeed. We had been informed in writing about those things, that is, the printed organizational chart.
Q. Can you tell us from your knowledge from the correspondence, from the organization plan, from the conversations that you had with construction officials, what tasks Eirenschmalz carried out in C VI? In other words, what function did C VI perform?
A. C VI, very simply, was in charge of checking and approving the funds for maintenance and also the entire auditing of all the various construction agencies.
Q. Did he audit your funds?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. Did you have any other contacts with C VI?
A. No.
Q. Tell us, if you will, in as much detail as you can just what contacts you did have with C VI.
A. The only close contacts which I had were the conferences concerning accounting and checking of accounts, which conferences I had with Eirenschmalz's deputies and Eirenschmalz himself, every time I went to Berlin. That was every six months or so.
Q. Was it on that assumption that you made the statement that Eirenschmalz was in charge of checking and auditing and making funds available for the concentration camps? I'm trying to find out if you had any knowledge of that statement or if it is just an assumption.
A. It was just an assumption on my part on the basis of the facts explained before.
Q. Did you have any knowledge of concentration camps?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. You didn't know how funds were made available or how accounts were checked in concentration camps?
A. In 1942--I couldn't tell you for sure.
Q. Did you have any knowledge at any time of these matters?
A. As I stated before, I only knew about 1939, 1940, where a certain amount was placed at the disposal of the concentration camp Buchenwald for the construction of the kitchen.
As of 1939 according to Riedl's statement certain construction was necessary for the concentration camp of Buchenwald. Generally speaking, however, it had been completed. A little later Riedl told me that no more construction would be carried out or would be permitted to be carried out for the concentration camps because there was a lack of funds. Nothing except the kitchen was to be changed--it had been constructed wrong when the framework was being set up, and therefore had to be changed. It is then that I was told by Riedl--well, the approximate words were, "Eirenschmalz has still to approve those funds." That was in 1939.
Q. Do you know what position Eirenschmalz held at that time?
A. No, I didn't know for sure, nor can I make any statement to that effect because at that time I was in Berlin for only a very short period of time; and I only had conferences with Riedl. He still lived at the Geissbergstrasse at that time.
Q. Did you tell the interrogator when you were making these statements that any of them were assumptions?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. Witness, I have here the transcript of your interrogation. As a matter of fact, I will let you look at it. I must tell you that there is nothing in this interrogation that indicates that these statements were made as assumptions. Rather, it appears that they were stated from your own knowledge. I want to tell you this, Witness-this is a very serious matter.
Weren't you told when you were signing these affidavits that they were going to be used in court, that men's lives might hang in the balance and that the prosecution in Nuernberg wanted to make certain only justice is done and that no one should hang who isn't guilty? That was told to you, wasn't it? You were put under oath, weren't you?
A. Yes, indeed. I was under oath and it was the reason why I signed because it says at the end of the affidavit "according to the best of my knowledge and belief".
Q. At that time it was to the best of your knowledge and belief, is that right?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. You were given an opportunity to read the affidavit and make changes and in fact you did make changes as the affidavit shows, in your hand. Is that correct?
A. Well, I made certain changes in one of those affidavits and I added some other things.
Q. It's in your own handwriting, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And you signed at the bottom of each of those pages?
A. Yes.
Q. And you had an opportunity to read it over after it was typed up and before you signed it?
A. Yes, as I stated before, I read the whole thing through. There was quite a bit of hurry there and the examiner had some sort of discussion with one of the guards there and they were all in a hurry and I had to leave and I added in every one of those statements that those were assumptions on my part and, above all, I wasn't quite sure about the difference in years of the WVHA Office Construction and Budget and the SS Administrative Office. I didn't have an exact recollection of all of those facts.
MR. ROBBINS: Your Honor, I will submit in evidence the transcript of the interrogation of this witness that was made at the time he signed the affidavit.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q. Witness, did I understand you to mean that you made the statement in this affidavit or the two affidavits but that you were not certain as to the years in which these facts took place?
A. Yes, indeed. That's correct. I wasn't quite sure about the years, and I told that to the examining official.
Q. But the facts as contained in the affidavit, not taking into consideration the years, are true, is that so?
A. They deal with 1938 to 1940; to be sure all of that period it included under one.
Q. And what you state took place at that time, is it true?
A. Yes, in various periods of time. I would have to answer those questions if they are asked me individually.
Q. Now, you were in Russia from about the 1st of 1942 until 1944, you say?
A. I didn't get that. Will you repeat, please?
Q. I understood you to say that you went to Russia in December 1941 and you stayed in Russia until sometime in 1944 - in March, I think - is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that while you were in Russia you visited the offices of the WVHA about every six months?
A. Yes.
Q. And that while you were in Berlin you had conversations with Kammler and with subordinates of C-6 and with Eirenschmalz. Now, while you were in Berlin and during these conversations, what did Eirenschmalz tell you about the work?
A. Well, you mean something in connection with the auditing?
Q. The auditing of C-6 or whatever C-6 was doing?
A. Well, during that conversation at the time or in those conversations which I had with C-6 I only discussed the auditing and the setting up of accounts, all of the accounts for all of the construction departments which were subordinate to me personally.
Q. Now, when was this Kammler told you that Eirenschmalz was his deputy?
A. Kammler didn't tell me that. As I have stated before, an SS fuehrer or leader, I don't recall his name any more, when I needed one of Kammler's signatures, told me only Eirenschmalz as the superior office of this has the right to sign for Kammler. However, that was prior to the time when Professor Dr. Schleif was Kammler's deputy. He was a Standartenfuehrer.
Q. Was this while you were in Russia or before you went to Russia?
A. As far as I know I was already in Russia at the time.
Q. And that was a statement made to you when you were back in Berlin visiting the WVHA from Russia?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was made in one of the offices of the WVHA in Berlin?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. Now, when was it that you say that you saw Eirenschmalz signature to a communication and he signed as deputy of Kammler?
A. As I stated before, that I can't recall the exact date nor can I recall the year.
Q. Were you in Russia then or was that before you went to Russia?
A. Well, now, let's see. As far as I can recall, it was during that period when I was in Russia.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: All right.
BY JUDGE MUSMANNO:
Q. Witness, I understand that the prime fault in these affidavits is that the dates are not correct, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. But generally the substance is true as to certain functions and operations?
A. Well, yes, the dates of the affidavits are all mixed up.
Q. Do you have before you NO-2322? The 5th of March affidavit.
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Very well. About the middle of the third page, it will be the end of page 1 of the original, this statement appears: "During the time he was Kammler's deputy Eirenschmalz signed the official mail by order of Kammler." Now, that statement represents the truth, does it not? That's true.
A. Yes.
Q. All right, now, take the next sentence: "Since the foundation of the Economic and Administrative Main Office Eirenschmalz among other things was charged with granting subsidies for keeping up building operations of all building projects of the Waffen-SS, which also included the concentration camps." That's true?
A. By that I mean the task of approving the funds for the maintenance service of all of the construction of the Waffen-SS and therefore all of the concentration camps.
Q. Very well, the next sentence: "In this capacity he had to grant annual subsidies for keeping up the building operations and for repair work." That's generally correct, isn't it? Generally speaking, that's correct, is it not?
A. As an assumption, yes.
Q. Very well, the next sentence: "The bills obtained in the term for the annual payments were sent to him afterwards as vouchers."
A. Yes, to Office C-6; that's where they were sent to.
Q. All right, now, and this last sentence: "Eirenschmalz knew by the way of the bills which he had to examine when gas chambers or crematories or other concentration camp establishments were in need of repair." That's generally true also, is it?
A. As I said about that before, that was an assumption on my part because Eirenschmalz's agency had various people who dealt with those fields of tasks and everyone of those accounts - a large number of accounts couldn't all possibly be seen by Eirenschmalz.
Q. When you signed this affidavit, did you make any change in that particular sentence?
A. No, I didn't. I also added then that it was nothing but an assumption.
Q. On the affidavit?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you write that on the original affidavit?
A. Yes, according to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Q. Well, you didn't say it was an assumption. You didn't use the words "it is an assumption"?
A. Well, according to the best of my knowledge and belief is nothing but an assumption really. That's the way I understand it.
Q. That's the way most affidavits are signed. That's the only way you can sign anything, "according to the best of my knowledge and belief".
A. Yes, and at the time that was my best knowledge and belief.
Q. Do you know if someone asked me did I see you in this Court and I had to sign an affidavit to that effect it would be that way? According to the best of my knowledge and belief?
A. I didn't know that, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will recess, I regret to say, until tomorrow morning at nine o'clock.
(The Court adjourned until 0900 hours, 28 June 1947.)
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 28 June 1947, 0930-1230, Justice Robert M. Toms, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
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.
THE PRESIDENT: Where were we? Weren't you cross examining him, Mr. Robbins?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, sir, Your Honor, and I have no further cross examination. I think defense counsel wants to recall the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to examine the witness further?
DR. von STEIN: Yes, sir, unless the Court thinks I am finished, without putting any further questions to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: If you can do without it we can. Just as you like about that. If you have no further questions we will excuse the witness.
DR. von STEIN: May I just put a few brief questions to him, and sum up his testimony.
BY DR. von STEIN:
Q. Witness, from your testimony yesterday, I do not think that a very clear picture has been received so far as you said, first of all, that your knowledge was not based on your own observation; 2, the period of time you anti-dated your statements, so to speak, I assume that you were speaking only about the period up to '38 and '39?
A. Yes.
Q. Therefore, your statements in your affidavit concerned only that period of time?
A. Yes, most of it, yes.
Q. When you say most of it I unhappily have to ask you once again what statements are concerned with '38 or '39 and what statements you reserved to a later to me?
A. From the questions put to me by the interrogating officer, a mistake arose of which I discovered only yesterday. For instance, I was asked by the interrogating officer how a crematorium and the gas chamber were built. When I answered that, I inspected such an installation for the first time when I was imprisoned in Dachau. He asked me to describe the organizational origin of any building to apply to the crematorium at Dachau. That is how this description was made, I did not think of any particular year, or period of time, nor did I think that was necessary.
Q. Let's proceed with the question. You are to describe how a crematorium was built?
A. Yes.
Q. Or gas chamber? How did you happen to have that knowledge?
A. From the order or regulation concerning the building or construction of same which was worked out by Office Group-C in the book.
Q. What was the name of the book?
A. I don't remember the title.
Q. When was the book published?
A. When the WVHA was established.
Q. How did the book reach you?
A. When the WVHA was established, and every agency of Office Group-C was sent a copy.
Q. Will you tell us what this book described about the building of a gas chamber and a crematorium?
A. It does not show anything about that. It speaks only about normal construction, such as building barracks, garage, or any other building for the troops. Any specific statements are not contained in that book, but I told the interrogating officer that I also described the origin of a normal building project for troops, and I applied that to the organizational origins of a crematorium. That was the result of the questions put to me by the interrogating officer.
Q. Do you know that when the crematorium was built, that was the same way as any other building. Please let me finish my sentence. Or was the building of a crematorium a secret matter?
A. I said about that, that the actual organizational origin of a crematorium was not sufficiently known to me to make statements under oath. I could only give my assumptions, as I myself had no contact with any such construction project.
Q. Then I want you to describe -- I want to talk about your description which you gave in your affidavit about the organizational process in Office Group-C. Was that correct?
A. I put that together from my memory, because I had no material at my disposal. I did it to the best of my belief and knowledge.
Q. But it can not be quite correct if you had your knowledge only from that book about the building project. Your statements about the building of a crematorium were not contained in the book, as you said yourself, but your statements, only about the building of crematoria in particular where you mentioned Office Group-D, and so far as Office Group-C, you were speaking of Offices 1, III and V. Was that an arbitrary list you gave from your own memory, or did you have any evidence and documents apart from that book?
A. I said already that I gave only as an example which I applied to the building of crematoria in that form of evidence which I was unable to apply, because I had no documents at my disposal. It was purely a reconstruction from memory.
Q What can you give us in the way of facts about Defendant Eirenschmalz?
A I am unable to say anything about Eirenschmalz.
Q But you did so in both your affidavits.
A That was simply because of the questions put to me by the interrogating officer.
Q I may say, therefore, that the contents of both your affidavits you now repudiate.
A By the statement, the differentiation between the various offices are now different in my mind than they were when the interrogation was put together.
Q Were you ever subordinated to Eirenschmalz?
A No.
Q But you said that in 1938 or 1939 you joined Eirenschmalz and that you were his subordinate. Is that statement incorrect?
A I was not immediately subordinate to him.
Q But you said so.
A Well, as far as I know, I said that I knew him from that time.
Q All your other statements concerning the alleged knowledge of Eirenschmalz from construction bills and things like that concerning the repair work of crematoria and gas chambers, do you maintain them?
A No, on the basis of yesterday's discussions I am unable to maintain these statements, as these statements were pure assumptions.
Q Your other statements concerning the bills which Eirenschmalz had, all about building maintenance, do you maintain those statements?
A Maintenance of buildings was in Eirenschmalz' charge.
Q What year are you talking about?
A Of the year since 1942.
Q And what do you base your statements on in this case?
A During my activity I had to draw up statements about maintenance of buildings for some administrative offices.
Q Where were you then?
A In Middle East.
Q How is it you know what tasks and duties Eirenschmalz had to carry out with the WVHA?
A I know that from the organizational chart. You could see it from there and the interrogating officer showed me the organizational chart when I was interrogated at the time and from there I could see what Eirenschmalz was doing concerning the maintenance side.
Q The only evidence, therefore, on which you base your statement was this organizational chart?
AAnd my experiences which I gathered in Berlin when I made my trips to Berlin.
Q With whom did you confer when you went to Berlin?
A Several building inspectors and the various Main Office chiefs and we conferred together.
Q Did you ever talk to Eirenschmalz about maintenance when you made your trips and when was that?
A I can not recall that I talked to him personally about the maintenance of buildings. I merely talked about bills and accounts of new construction.
Q Of new constructions?
A Yes.
Q But you made statements concerning definite repair work. You said, for instance, repair work on gas chambers and crematoria.
A Well, they were the words put into my mouth by the interrogating officer.
Q I would like to ask you, did you yourself have anything to do with gas chambers and crematoria when you were in Russia?
A No.
Q Therefore, you are not in a position to make any statements about that point.
A I said before that I gave my assumptions which arose from the questions put to me by the interrogating officer.
Q Who were you under when you were in Russia Middle?
A Immediately under Office Group C.
Q Were you under the SS Economist?
A Only as far as the disciplinary matters were concerned. In my actual work I was immediately under the Office Group Chief of Office Group C.
DR. VON STEIN: If the Tribunal please, I have no further questions.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, are you a graduate engineer?
A Yes.
Q How long have you been studying and practicing engineering?
A I studied for fourteen terms and I practiced before I joined the Waffen SS for six years.
Q And what was your highest rank in the SS which you attained?
A In the Waffen SS I was a Sturmbannfuehrer.
Q And how long were you connected with construction activities with the SS, for how many years?
A I don't understand.
Q For how many years were you connected with the construction activities of the SS?
A From February 1939 until the surrender.
Q From February 1939 until the surrender, is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Do you remember that your interrogating officer of both affidavits on the 20th of February and the 5th of March was Mr. Wolfe?
A Yes.
Q Was it the same Mr. Wolfe who was sitting at the prosecution table yesterday afternoon when you were testifying?
A Yes.
Q Were you under oath when you gave the testimony?
A Yes.
Q And were you telling the truth when you gave your testimony?
A To the best of my belief and knowledge.
MR. ROBBINS: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Robbins, I think yesterday you offered the original interrogation of this witness.
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, it's being processed, Your Honor.
DR. BELZER (Attorney for the Defendant Sommer): With the permission of the Tribunal I would like to open the case of Defendant Sommer.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute please. Let's finish with this witness. Do you want to examine this witness?
DR. BELZER: I am so sorry. I thought he had been removed.
THE PRESIDENT: No other questions of this witness?
DR. VON STEIN: One more question, please.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q Witness, did I talk to you ever before you came to this court?
A No, never.
THE PRESIDENT: This witness may be removed by the Marshal, please.
(The witness was excused.)
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Defendant Eirenschmalz wish to call any further witnesses? No?
DR. VON STEIN: If the Tribunal please, I have now come to the end of the defense on behalf of Eirenschmalz, but I have not completely finished. The prosecution submitted a new affidavit yesterday and announced that another affidavit is to follow. I can not completely rest my case. Also an affidavit has been submitted to me by the co-defendant Pohl. The offer of that affidavit was made when Defendant Pohl was no longer on the witness stand. I was therefore not in a position to put questions concerning this affidavit to Pohl. I would therefore like to reserve the right to speak about that affidavit at some future point. By permission of the court I would like to submit another affidavit, or, also, I should be glad to crossexamine that witness myself here.
THE PRESIDENT: You have no other witnesses at this time?
DR. VON STEIN: No, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: It is understood that you may offer further proof at a later time, if you wish.
DR. VON STEIN: Then I have one request. I would be grateful to see the affidavit by Bestle as soon as possible so that this matter can be dealt with as quickly as possible.
THE PRESIDENT: What affidavit is that, Mr. Robbins?
MR. ROBBINS: It is the affidavit that I said will be distributed today. I will give Counsel a copy immediately after the session. They don't seem to be here this morning.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be furnished as soon as it is ready?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, Your Honor.
DR. HOFFMANN (Attorney for the Defendant Scheide): If the Tribunal please, it is my intention to follow Scheide's case after the case of Defendant Pook. Now I have been told that this week the court will not meet on Thursday or Friday. I don't know whether this applies to this Court.
THE PRESIDENT: This Court will be in session on Thursday, but not on Friday and not on the following Monday, which is July 7, and we will be in session - this court will be in session Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of next week.
DR. HOFFMANN: In that case I would be grateful if Defendant Scheide in order to prepare his case would be excused on Tuesday next.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, if you wish.
Now, Sir.
DR. BELZER: I wanted to say just now that the main part of my evidence in the case of Sommer will be Sommer's interrogation as a witness on his own behalf. Before doing so, however, I would like to interrogate Witness Rammler. By the permission of the Tribunal I have two witnesses at my disposal on the same subject.