JUDGE PHILLIPS: I understood it before that the Guard units were entirely separate and distinct from all control or supervision of the WVHA.
MR. ROBBINS: That is what the defendant Pohl testified to.
DR. SEIDL: Dr. Seidl for the defendant Oswald Pohl. If it please the Court, I am unable to see this contradiction between the testimony and the document, which the Prosecution claims to have found. The defendant Pohl never denied as is suggested in this document, namely, that Obergruppenfuehrer Gluecks was responsible for all matters which were connected with concentration camp matters. Pohl's testimony was in contrast to this statement only in as much, as he was Chief of the Main Office, and was given the responsible management of labor allocation, and that testimony of Pohl is not contradicted by this document. As regards the 40,000 men of the Guards Unit, Defendant Pohl stated that the military directions, so far as training and similar things were concerned were task of the SS Main Operational Office. These Guards were entirely headed by the Inspector of the Camp, who was Gluecks. I do not think that we have here any divergence between the testimony of the defendant Pohl and the contents of this document.
MR. ROBBINS: It appears, Your Honor, that the defendant Pohl approved the statement, and passed it on to the Personnel Office in recommending Gluecks for appointment. Pohl's signature appears on the first page of the recommendation for the promotion.
DR. SEIDL: If the Tribunal please, I think that is rather an important point to which I should draw Your Honor's attention. The defendant Pohl has only signed the first page. Page 3 was signed by a man called Burgdorf, who was a General of the Infantry, and Chief of the Army Personnel Office, and for which the "PA" stands, Army Personnel Office. The document was, therefore, passed on by an agent there which was not connected with the WVHA, but with the OKH; that a general of the infantry had not and could not have had precise knowledge of the competencies should be regarded as highly probable.
THE PRESIDENT: What probably happened was that Pohl procured this letter-recommendation from Burgdorf, and sent it on with his request for promotion.
MR. ROBBINS: I think that appears from the document, as I understand Dr. Seidl's statement to be that the defendant Oswald Pohl has conceded that the Guard Units were under Gluecks in an administrative sense. The second sentence of this paragraph goes further than that and says that Gluecks did not only have to supervise the military direction of the Guard Units, but also there is that statement that the Guard Units were under Gluecks militarily, and in an administrative sense.
THE COURT: Oh, no. If you finish the sentence you will see it says he is also responsible for the military order and conduct.
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, I think that refers to military discipline as well as just supplying their administrative needs.
THE COURT: Well, isn't that the situation--isn't it a fact that the Guards were selected by the Main Office of Berlin, and assigned to the concentration camp; and there placed under the command of Gluecks, who had to supply them, assign them to their tasks, and keep them in order.
MR. ROBBINS: That is My understanding. Is that the understanding of Dr. Seildl? Dr. Seildl: If the Tribunal please, I should like to say one thing about that the Court has said just now. The defendant Pohl has just told me or has just written me a note, and what he said seems to coincide then with the two documents, in that the recommendation of Dr. Burgdorf was drawn up after Oswald Pohl's letter of 13 January 1945 had already been sent. In other words, Oswald Pohl's letter of 11 January 1945 had already been sent. In other words, Oswald Pohl did not know the contents of Burgdorf's letter. The contents of which letter he only learned here in this court. So far as the other point is concerned, namely, who was responsible for the military conduct of the Guard Units, I would like to say, as regards the difficulty of limiting the competencies, I do not want to say anything in fact as defense counsel.
I would leave it open for the Court to Question Oswald Pohl briefly on this point.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
MR. ROBBINS: The next document 4243, will be Prosecution's Exhibit No. 705.
THE PRESIDENT: That is Burgdorf's letter?
MR. ROBBINS: No, that is still a part of the first exhibit, Your honor. Burgdorf's letter is a part of 704.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not 4243. The next document is 4251.
MR ROBBINS: That is what I intended to say, Your Honor.
DR. SEIDL: If the Court please, one of my colleagues has just told me that Document NO-4243 had nothing to do with each other. That General Burgdorf's recommendation has no factual connection with the letter of Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl of 13 January 1345. The two letters concerned two entirely different matters. This becomes clear from the contents of the documents. In Oswald Pohl's letter of 13 January 1945, which shows at the bottom it says that the Reichsfuehrer-SS has approved all of the recommendations, "and what we are concern with here is the awarding of war service cross first class with swords. This becomes clear from the heading of the document; in a contrast to this it says in the last paragraph of the General Burgdorf's letter, "The amount of this contribution justifies the award of the German Cross in Silver." Therefore, we have to entirely different decorations here, which were to be awarded to Obergruppenfuehrer Gluecks. The first document concerns the war Service Cross, and the second one concerns the German Cross in Silver. Where are two different decorations.
MR. PRESIDENT: Not according to the translation, they both refer to the German Silver Cross, in the translation.
DR. SEIDL: According to the German text, there can be no doubt that they are two different decorations. It is becoming more and more complicated, Your Honor. Mr Robbins has just shown me the original, and the original now shows that on the first page the words, "War Service Cross" has been crossed out, and above that in typewriting are the words "German Cross in Silver," but this does not coincide with the copy of the German text. I, therefore, withdraw my objection.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think it makes a bit of difference which decoration he got. We are not concerned with that, and the statement of Burgdorf seems to be in accord with Pohl's testimony. I don't see much dispute here. Pohl himself said that concentration camp guards were assigned by the Main Office, detailed to the concentration camp, and there came under the control administratively of Gluecks. This is all this says.
MR. ROBBINS: The next two documents are offered to show the early connection of the defendant Pohl with the concentration camps there, from the year of 1938. The first one, No. 2521, will be Exhibit 705, and the second one - - this is all one document, I am sorry. No. 2521 will be Exhibit 705. The first letter is from a person by the name of Kriebs to Himmler, and he tells Himmler that he has heard that Germans are working in uranium mines, and suggest that the concentration camp inmates be used for this dangerous work.
THE PRESIDENT: He said that political criminals be used for this work.
MR. ROBBINS: What did he say?
THE PRESIDENT: He said political criminals be used for this work.
MR. ROBBINS: In the first sentence he said he has talked to Growitz about the concentration camp inmates, and apparently Germans in the German concentration camps have been given a job of working in the uranium mines, and he suggest that political criminals be given this task. Then, if Your Honor please, the second letter signed by Gruppenfuehrer Karl Wolf, of Himmler's Staff, replying to Kriebs' letter, says that he considers the idea very good, and he asked him to make arrangements for carrying out of this plan in cooperation with the Chief of Verwaltungsamt-SS, Pohl and the leader of the concentration camp, Eicke, and he says that Himmler intends to place the worst criminals at the disposal of the ranium mines. This is offered to show that at this stage, 1938, Pohl was concerned with the allocation of prisoner labor.
DR. SEIDL: Dr. Seidl for the defendant Oswald Pohl. Your Honor, in connection with the conclusion which the Prosecution has drawn from this document. I want to say that the assignment was never carried out, secondly, the defendant Pohl and his office were merely to lock after the administrative side of the whole affair, but this document does not show that he had any connection with the allocation. The document does not show anything about that.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's not argue about that.
MR. ROBBINS: The next document, I am sorry to say, the exhibit is lost, therefore, I am not able to offer it, which is 3654.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it has been previously offered, anyway.
MR. ROBBINS: I was not able to find it in the documents which had been already offered. Your Honor may be right, however. The next document 2367, is Exhibit 706, and it is offered simply to rebut the testimony of several defense witnesses that it was only in the latter part of the war that conditions in the concentration camps became real bad.
This letter and the next letter are from July 1941, and the last paragraph in the first letter states that in conclusion it can be said that the state of health of Dachau prisoner, that not a single prisoner is fully fit for labor duty, and that also in the near future only a very small percentage will be fully fit for labor duty. And the second letter in the third paragraph states that the larger part of the prisoners transferred are sick persons, and cripples who are absolutely unfit for labor duty.
The next document, 3169, is Exhibit 707, I believe that this document is the one that Dr. Seidl has asked for several times. It appears to be the order for the transfer of authority of the concentration camp to the WVHA, and it is offered as such a document.
The next document, 3980, will be Exhibit 708. It is connected with the next document 3990, which is 709. It shows that the defendant Pohl was sufficiently concerned with small details in the concentration camps to determine the number of inmates in the concentration camp with German sounding names.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, he was ordered to do that.
MR. ROBBINS: Yes. The next document, 4181, will be Exhibit 710. And I believe that this document is the one that the defendant Sommer has asked the Prosecution to produce. That is the only one that fits the description which his counsel has given, which we can find concerning the allocation of prisoners as assigned by the defendant Sommer.
THE PRESIDENT: 709.
MR. ROBBINS: I beg your pardon?
THE PRESIDENT: 709?
MR. ROBBINS: 710.
DR. BELZER: Dr. Belzer for the defendant Sommer. If the Court please, I want to object to the offer of this document in this manner.
How this document was drawn up does not become clear from the document. and the accompanying letter should be submitted as well. This request for a compensation for inmate labor from concentration camp labor was dated from the months of July to October. It says in the left hand portion -- hand written -- the left bottom corner, "Received 11 January 1945," and it seems to come from Staufenbiel, the official in charge of D-II 3. At that time the concentration camp of Lublin no longer existed at all. Therefore, no connection can be constructed from this document between Office D-II 3 and the concentration camp of Lublin. It is quite obvious from the document, which shows the contents of the two letters, concerning the request, and additionally for the request of smac which was lost when Lublin was evacuated, and they were the parts in D-II for purely administrative purposes concerning the list of allocation of inmates, which it shows on the back of this document. And merely the correctness of this has been confirmed by Sommer, but this otherwise has nothing to do with what Office D-II did, and this would become clear from the accompanying letter, if they would be submitted, but it does not become clear from this document. Probably it would be a good idea if the Court would interrogate Sommer briefly on how this signature came about.
MR. ROBBINS: These documents are signed by the defendant Sommer, and as I said the main purpose for which I have offered them here, it is at the request of the defense counsel. If he does not care for them I am willing to withdraw them. Do you have any such desire?
DR. BELZER: I have asked for unentirely different documents at the time which I have not received, although I was promised them daily. The document for which I have put in a request, is a teletype letter of the defendant Sommer to the concentration camp of Auschwitz, where the monthly or bi-monthly lists of inmates which were to be sent to Office D-II was wrong, and some were purely a protest, but I did not receive the document which I had requested.
MR. ROBBINS: Well, I don't think this document has any particular probative value. I was told that this was a document the defense counsel was looking for and this is the only one we could find that fit the description which gave us, and I will withdraw the offer of the document.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you think it is important to show the manner in which they were assigned?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, I believe that it is. Since he is signing here for the Chief of D-II. If the Court please, I will enter this as Exhibit 710.
THE PRESIDENT: And it will be admitted in evidence.
MR. ROBBINS: The next document book is No. 31, which contains, I believe, about six documents. The first one is rather a large one, 1595, which will be Prosecution's Exhibit No. 711, At page 3 of the document is a statement and a recommendation for promotion, showing that Frank has since 25 March 1933 been in charge of the administration in Dachau concentration camp, and this goes back many years before the date that Frank gave on the stand as his first connection with concentration camp affairs. The entire document is the Personnel 201 File of the defendant Frank.
MR. ROBBINS: Another important point in this document, I believe, is on Pages 13 and 14 of the personnel file, which fixes the exact date when Frank was transferred from the WVHA. And the statement on Page 16 is to the effect that he maintained his regular position as Chief of Amtagruppe A, that is, up until he was actually transferred. This is dated the 16th of September 1943. On Page 13 it is stated that on the 27th of September he is relieved of his duties in the WVHA.
The next document is missing from the English Document Book, 4062, and I will therefore not offer it. The next document, 4061? will be Prosecution Exhibit 712. This is from the personnel file of the defendant Vogt; and on the second page is a statement signed by Pohl that Vogt has been occupied since October 1936 as a chief accountant with the checking of the accounts of the special duty units, the Death Head formation, and concentration camps. That was a preposition that Vogt denied during the course of his testimony.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean he denied performing those duties?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, he denied that he had ever been in charge of auditing in the concentration camps. The next document is still a part of the personnel file of Vogt, is 4063, and will be Prosecution Exhibit 713. A statement at the bottom of the page is on the employment in the Party from 1920 to 1923. It is stated that he is chief of a local group of the SA, and the defendant Vogt denied on the stand that he had ever been a member of the SA.
The next document, 4436, is still part of his file and will be Exhibit 714. The same statement is contained on the second page of that document, "employed in the Party as local group leader at Degeldorf."
THE PRESIDENT: Where does it say that, Mr. Robbins?
MR. ROBBINS: On the second page of Document 4436. On the fourth page of that same document another statement by the defendant Pohl, that since the 1st of October 1936 Vogt has been in charge of the accounts of the concentration camps and the auditing of the accounts.
THE PRESIDENT: Did he deny that?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, your Honor, he denied that during the period of the Verwaltungsamt SS, which was during the year of 1936, he had anything to do with auditing the concentration camps.
The next document is 1599 and will be Exhibit 715. This is still part of his file; and the last page of that document contains a handwritten statement in Vogt's own handwriting. In the last paragraph he says, "I joined the Party in April 1920." On the stand -- I've forgotten the exact date that he gave -- but it was a very much later date, some time in 1930, I believe. And he says at the beginning of 1021 he founded a local group in Degelsdorf. There is also the statement in the last sentence that in 1933 he entered the SA, which he denied on the stand. The rest of the documents in this book, I believe, are orders signed by the defendant Fanslau, concerning concentration camp commanders.
DR. VON STAKELBERG (for the defendant Fanslau): May it please the Court. I object to the presentation of these documents in this seperated form. These documents, as far as their contents are concerned, belong together with two other documents which have been submitted in other books, documents which would make the connection unequivocally clear. I might refer, for instance, to documents in Book IV, NO-1994, Exhibit 88. In this Exhibit 88, defendant Pohl passed on to recommendations for the transfer of commandants of concentration camps to Himmler. There the various transfers are quoted in detail. These orders of transfer which are now being submitted in Book XXXI are merely the technical execution of the orders which had been decreed by the Personnel Main Office, If you submit these transfer orders in Book XXXI separately, the impression might be gained that Fanslau could give orders to commandants of concentration camps, which was not the case.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean that he just carried out the order?
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: He just carried out the orders which came from the Personnel Main Office?
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Yes, quite; And that becomes clear from the connection between the documents. That is why I think these special transfers should not be submitted separately.
THE PRESIDENT: We have noted on the exhibit that it is to be read in connection with Exhibit 88.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Yes, and the same is also true with another one I've noted here. No, I'm sorry, that is about another document. Exhibit 88 is the one.
MR. ROBBINS: My recollection is. I don't have the reference to the transcript, that I asked the defendant Fanslau on cross examination if he signed the orders transferring the concentration camp commandants, and he denied that he did. The first one transfers the commandant Pauli of Stutthof to the concentration camp Neuengamme. It is 4560; and I offer it as Exhibit 716. The next one is 4559 and will be Exhibit 717. It is signed by the defendant Hans Loerner and deals with the salary of the same Max Pauli. The next document, 4511, is a recommendation for the promotion of Lauritz to Sachsenhausen. However, that has not been made ready in the English book, so it will not be offered.
The next document, 4510, will be Exhibit 718, and is the transfer order of Fritz Schuern, transferring him from Sachsenhausen to Ravensbruck. The next document, 4505, will be Prosecution Exhibit 720, and deals with the transfer of a Higher SS and Police Leader. The last book contains about six additional documents. The first exhibit, 721, is Document 3789, and is offered to rebut the testimony of the defendant Klein that he did not deal with all of the property of Prinz Max Lobkowitz but only dealt with one phase of it. This letter shows that he was concerned with the entire estate.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the exhibit number?
MR. ROBBINS: That is 721. I should like to point out on the sixth page of this document, which is signed by Klein, he says, "The above shows that it is unquestionably desirable to acquire the whole property." It is on the middle of the sixth page. And on the seventh page he discusses various ways and means to carry out the confiscation of the property.
The next document, 3786, is Exhibit 722, and is offered to show that Klein had an interest as late as December 1940 in this matter. And the next document, 3785, will be Exhibit 723. Hohberg writes to Klein that, "We have reached the point where the confiscation decree is ready to be sent out." If it please the Tribunal, we expect some time today to have word from the Czechoslovakian Government that this decree was finally sent out and that the property was confiscated. I trust that if that word does not come in today we may have permission to submit it before the 16th of the month.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. ROBBINS: The next document was included by mistake and will not be offered. That's 1949. The same applied to the next document, 1964. The next document, 3782. will be Exhibit 724, and is offered to show that W/VIII had requested the employment of prisoners for Kranichfeld, as the second sentence in the letter states. The memorandum is signed by Baier and by Klein.
DR. FICHT (for the defendant Klein): If the Tribunal please, I object to the admission of this document. According to the date, it come from a period of time when Klein no longer was Chief of Office W/VIII. Therefore, it cannot be of any probative value according to what the prosecution has just said.
MR. ROBBINS: I note that Klein has signed the document on the 27th of October 1944. Apparently this memorandum was written twentyseven days after the defendat Klein left the office. However, it does show that the Office W/VIII had requested prisoners; and I offer it to show that it was the function of W/VIII to request prisoner labor.
DR. FICHT: May I point out, your Honor, that defendant Klein said on the witness stand that the people he received from Weimar were not inmates of concentration camps but they came from a training camp.
MR. ROBBINS: The first word in the document is "Haftlinge" employed at Office W/VIII, inmates.
DR. FICHT: Inmates is an expression which could apply to both of them.
THE PRESIDENT: What about prisoners? The prison camp Weimar has released prisoners for Kranichfeld.
MR. ROBBINS: Weimar is the Weimar-Buchenwald, is it not?
DR. FICHT: No, it is not. That's just the point. It is not Weimar-Buchenwald. It has absolutely nothing to do with the concentration camp as becomes quite clear from Klein's testimony.
THE PRESIDENT: What is meant by a prison camp? Is that a labor camp?
DR. FICHT: This was a training camp, Your Honors, an educational establishment for such workers who, because of offenses against the labor decrees, were sent into an educational work camp in order to make them work. After a period of time, I believe nine weeks, they were released from there again. It has nothing to do with concentration camps.
THE PRESIDENT: In view of the date on the letter the exhibit will not be admitted.
MR. ROBBINS: I will cancel the Exhibit 724. I next offer the document 3780 as Exhibit 724. And this clearly comes from a date subsequent to Klein's departure. However, it is offered to show, on the second page, that Bartels was under Office W/VIII; that he was subordinated immediately to Himmler and did not go through W/VIII in his channel of authority.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is he mentioned?
MR. ROBBINS: In the top line on the second page as head of one of the branch offices of Department 1 of Office W/VIII.
DR. FICHT: Your Honors, I object to the admission of this document for the same reason, as I did concerning the other document because it is dated 2nd January 1945, considerably later than even the previous document. Might I say something about the point just mentioned by the prosecution? If the Court looks further down on the page, where it says "King Henry memorial Foundation," it says also "Quedlinburg, Lord Mayor Selig." It should be obvious that the Mayor of Quedlingburg could scarcely have been part of Office W/VIII. If, however, the successor of Klein, Oberfuehrer Salpeter, drew up a chart, in this manner it shows that he wanted to show is sphere of task as large as possible; but it says nothing about the channel of command.
MR. ROBBINS: We were not able to find the table of organization for the period during which Klein was in charge. It is offered simply to show that Bartels at a later date was under W/VIII and that, therefore, it was possible for him to be subordinate to W/VIII. It doesn't show, except circumstantially, that he was not immediately subordinate to Himmler in January 1945 but went through W/VIII in his channels.
THE PRESIDENT: When did Klein leave W/VIII?
DR. GICHT: At the end of September 1944.
THE PRESIDENT: This is three months later. I think our ruling on the previous exhibit controls; and this exhibit will be excluded.
MR. ROBBINS: The next document, 4551, I offer as Exhibit 724. This is offered to rebut the testimony of the defendant Pook that he was not attached to the SE Main Office. The document states that he was assigned to the medical department of the SD Main Office.
THE PRESIDENT: Did he deny that?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, Your Honor. There was a document that was put to him on cross examination, and it contained just the letters SD. He said it was his belief that the letters SD did not stand for SD Main Office and that he had never been attached to the SD Main Office. The last document in this book, 4795, will be Prosecution Exhibit 725. It is a letter from defendant Baier to Klein regarding the allocation of prisoners. And the word in the German original is "Haftlinge", allocation of inmates. It is offered to rebut the testimony of the defendant Klein that he was not concerned with the allocation of inmates labor. Baier writes to Klein that he has "discussed the allocation of inmates for your office with Obersturmbannfuehrer Hauer. I have one other document that I would like to insert at the end of this document book.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Your Honor, may I just make use of this opportunity to say something about Exhibit 720, the last document in Book 31. It is NO 4505, and it concerns the transfer of Obersturmbannfurhrer Schellin. That decree is closely connected with Prosecution Exhibit No. 331. It is contained in Book 12 and also in Book 18. This is a fairly extensive exhibit, and I would like to refer to Page 13 of the German version. There it says expressly that Himmler reserved the right personally to appoint his SS economists, and on Page 14. Pohl makes the suggestion to Himmler for the transfer of Obersturmbannfuehrer Schellin, with the result that here again this transfer decree signed by Fanslau, was merely an order he carried out.
MR. ROBBINS: Since I have just distributed this document to the Defense Counsel, I'll not offer it until some time later so that they will have a chance to read it.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's mark it, Mr. Robbins, and offer it subject to objections.
MR. ROBBINS: This is Document 1951 and will be Exhibit. 726.
I should like to ask the Tribunal, in winding up my rebuttal material, to take judicial notice of the decision of this Court in United States against Milch, and the concurring opinion in that case, and the judgment of the International Military Tribunal, and the judgment of Military Tribunal I in United States against Karl Brandt and other defendants.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean the entire judgments in those cases?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we, of course, would do that. Those are adjudicated cases , and we would consider them as available for our own use.
MR ROBBINS: There were five exhibits that were not contained in the document books that were put in on cross examination after the do cument books were introduced.
They are Exhibits 635 through 639, and I would like to offer those at this time. 639 was the magazine "Subhuman", which was just marked for identification. I would like to offer that in evidence. 638 is the affidavit of Mr. Jahn, summarizing the death books at Wewelsburg. I have copies for the Defense Counsel here.
637 was Document NO 4123, the large diagram of the VerwaltungsamtSS, that was signed by a number of officials of that office and that the witness Hubert Karl was examined upon.
And Exhibit 636 was Hubert Karl's second affidavit, NO 4154, and the last exhibit, 635, was the affidavit of Helga Wagner, who was the stenographer at the interrogation of the witness Schwarz, where Larry Wolfe took the interrogation. I would like to offer those in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: They are not in the document book?
MR. ROBBINS: They are not in the document book. They have been distributed to the Defense Counsel and to the Court, with the exception of the affidavit of the stenographer, which Counsel for the defendant Klein has and which I assume other Counsel are not interested in.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: We have it.
MR. ROBBINS: You have that affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Does that conclude your proof, Mr. Robbins?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. von Stakelberg, what is the news of the witness Meier?
DR. VON STAKELBERG: If the Tribunal please, I saw Miss Bendford last night, and she told me that she thought that the witness Meier should arrive here at any moment now. I have not yet had an opportunity this morning to see Miss Bendford again. In the recess now, I shall go upstairs and find out.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. We'll recess at this time so that you can find that out.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for about fifteen minutes.
( A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. HIEM: Dr. Heim, deputizing Dr. Ratz for Defendant Pook.
Your Honors, I want to object to Prosecution Document NO4551 in Document Book No. XXXII. That is the last but one Document. It received Exhibit No. 724. If I only object to this document at this time, then this is done for the reason that only during the recess I had the opportunity to take a look at the original. The original which was presented by the Prosecution is not signed, and if it should be a copy then on this document the word "Copy" is lacking, as well as the certificate which is customary.
I furthermore would like to point out that apparently this must be a draft because this document is from the 23rd of August, 1939, so that as a result of the outbreak of war on the 1st of September, 1939, it was not pur into execution any more. I therefore request that the document be not admitted in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: What is it you say about the war breaking out?
DR. HEIM: On the 1st of September, 1939, the war broke out in Germany. The document bears the date of the 23rd of August, 1939. It can be assumed that this document is only a draft and that as a result of the outbreak of war which occurred nine days later this transfer was not put into effect any more.
THE PRESIDENT: How can we assume that? Why could the outbreak of war got to do with it?
DR. HIEM: It can be assumed that this is simply a draft for transfer and that since the SS agencies had so much work to do as a result of the outbreak of war this matter was forgotten.
THE PRESIDENT: That is a wild suspicion. I can't assume that it is true. Apparently the document was distributed.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, however this document should at least be provided with a certificate. There would be some certificate on it or at least above the document the word "Copy" would have been written, but both of those things are lacking.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that does not make any difference. If it was a message from one person to another and was distributed, it could have been written on the back of an envelope and need not have been typewritten. What difference does that make? It is dignod in typewriter and it did carry the message to at least three offices, P-4, P-7, and P-11. So they wouldn't be distibuting a draft, would they?
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, it could only have been a suggestion which was not carried out because a transfer after all- had to be dignod by the Chief of Officer of Personnel office personally; and among those documents there certainly would be a better document which was signed and from which the transfer of the Defendant Pook becomes evident.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps because of the outbreak of the war they were too busy to get a better document. Maybe this is the best they had at the time. Tho objection is overruled, and your objection will be consedered in connection with the weight, the value of the document, but it will be admitted as it stands.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Your Honor, unfortunately I have not received any final notification yet about the witness Maier. Up to now he has not arrived here in the preson, and Miss Benford is right now trying by telephone to make some additional inquiries. Miss Benford has told me she will notify me about it immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: There is nothing we can do except wait. If he does not come this afternoon we will give you a chance to be heard on Monday, the 15th.
DR. SEIDL: Dr. Seidl for the Defendant Oswald Pohl.