I would like to add, Your Honor, that this document is a document which was submitted in the trial before Military Tribunal No. 3, in the so-called Justice Trail and that the existence of this document became known to me through this trial.
I am now coming to Pohl Document No. 10, which is located on page 43 of my document book. This is the Thirteenty Decree for the Reich Citizenship Law of 1 July 1943. I Want to offer it as Pohl Exhibit No. 9. This decree was issued by the Reich Minister of Finance, and the Reich Minister of Justice. This decree does not stand in connection with the activity of the WVHA or any other organization.
The next documents will deal with the labor allocation questions. On page 45 of my document book, as Pohl Document No. 11, I have reproduced the decree of the Fuehrer concerning a plenipotentiary for the utilization of labor of the 21st of March 1942. I want to offer this decree as Pohl Exhibit No. 10. The reason why included this decree in the document book is the fact that Gauleiter Sauckel at the same time was appointed Plenipotentiary General for the allocation of Labor. When the Defendant Oswald Pohl was charged with the ministerial direction of the labor allocation of inmates.
I am now turning to Pohl Document No. XII, which is contained on page 46 of my document book. This is a decree about the carrying our of a Decree of the Fuehrer concerning a Plenipotentiary for the Utilization of Labor of the 27th of March, 1942. I wait to offer this decree as Pohl Exhibit No. 11.
The next document which I ask the Tribunal to look at is Pohl Document No. 13 and it is contained on page 48 of my docu ment book.
This is an article by the State Minister in the Prussian Ministry of Justice of the 13th of September, 1940, about the work assignments and penal administration. This editorial was contained in an official publication of the German Reich Ministry of Justice. This was the Weekly Journal No. 37. I want to offer this document as Pohl Exhibit No. 12.
I am now turning to Pohl Document No. 14. It is located on page 51 of my document book for the Defendant Pohl. This is an extract of the Penal administration Law, which was an official special publication of the German Justice Administration. It was No. 21. With regard to this Penal Administration Law in my final arguments for the Defendant Pohl, I shall comment on this law and I know offer it as Pohl Exhibit No. 13. Very detailed laws are contained here about the working hours and about the insurance regulations and things of that sort about people in protective custody.
I am now comeing to page 54 of the document book for the Defendant Pohl, which is Pohl Document No. 15. This document deals with the question of the capacity of the Defendant Pohl as the Chief Judge. This is a decree from the Main Office SS Courts of the 1st of July, 1942, which was published in the official gazette of the Waffen SS. It bears the heading and I quote, "Competence of the Hegher SS and Police Leaders as Judges for the members of branches of the Main Office." The contents of this document show quite clearly that the Defendant Oswald Pohl was a judge only for the members which belonged directly to his main office. I want to offer this document as Pohl Exhibit No. 14.
Pohl Document 16 is contained on page 55 of the document book. It is an affidavit by Standartenfuehree Gerhart Maurer It bears the date of 3 of July, 1947. The Tribunal knows that Maurer was the Chief of Office Group D and he was in charge of the office which directed the labor allocation of inmates on the ministerial level.
The contents of this affidavit soon to have considerable probative value and I want to offer this document as Pohl Exhibit No. 15. I only want to make a very few comments on this document.
In paragraph 1, the affiant testifies about the positions which he occupied in the administration of the SS at the various times.
In paragraph 2, he deals with the description and purpose of the incorporation of the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps into the WVHA, where he gives detailed reasons why this was done.
Paragraph 3 gives a description about the activity of the Defendant Oswald Pohl in his capacity as Chief of of the WVHA with regard to the labor allocation of inmates and the administration of the concentration camps.
Paragraph 4 contains a description about the reports and ordnances which were dealt with by Office D-II, which were received by Office D-II at regular intervals and Submitted to the Chief of the Main Office, Pohl.
Paragraph 5, the affiant deals with the question of what effect the incorporation of the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps, which was carried out by Himmler's Order of the 3d of March, 1942, had on the organization of the NVHA and the organization of the Inspectorate.
In paragraph 6, the affiant deals with the position--of tho RSHA.
And in paragraph 7, the affiant reproduces the order which was issued by Himmler to the Higher SS and Police Leaders. This order referred to the administration of the camps.
I am now turning to page 59 of the Document Book, which contains Pohl Document No. 17. I want to offer this document as Pohl Exhibit No. 16. The subject of this document is an affidavit describes the expert diagnosis with regard to the so-called food experiments, a field in which Professor Kurt Gutzeit has a special knowledge. I want to refer in particular to Paragraph 2 of the affidavit where the witness and expert deals with the contents of Document NO-203, which has been presented by the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Don't bother reading this affidavit, Dr. Seidl. We can read it. It concerns the food experiments.
DR. SEIDL: I did not intend to read any part, but I was just coming to the next document.
THE PRESIDENT: Good.
DR. SEIDL: The next document is Pohl Document No. 18. It also deals with the question of these experiments and I want to offer it as Pohl Exhibit No. 17. I shall not read any part of it.
The last document in this Document Book No. I is an affidavit by the vice- president Dr. Hoepker and this is Pohl Document No. 19, which I offer as Pohl Exhibit No. 18. I do not intend to read any part of this document and I request the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it.
This concludes my presentation of evidence which contained in Pohl Document Book No. I. I would be grateful to the Tribunal if steps could be taken to the effect that by the 15th of September, 1947, the Document Books II and III and the Supplemental Volume could be completed, as for as the translation is concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: I am quite agreeable. I'd be perfectly willing to have them complete at any time. You don't need my consent, but I can't translate it.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT AUGUST FRANK): Your Honor, I now would like to call the Defendant Frank to the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: Now what do you propose to cover in this examination.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Here I am dealing with the documents which were contained in the Prosecution Document Books XXVII to XXXI, as far as they concern the Defendant Frank. These document have been presented during the last few days by the Prosecution.
DR. HAENSEL: Karl Haensel for Georg Loerner-
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. I am all tied up with Frank for a moment. Just a minute, Dr. Haensel. Will you just-
DR. HAENSEL: I just wanted to set up a program, a program for this afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we've got a little time yet. Sotzen Sie sich. Is Frank just going to go on the stand and repeat the denials that he has already made?
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: No, Your Honor, but he is going to comment on the documents which have been presented by the prosecution. He wants to make them documents comprehensible to the Tribunal in the sense which I shall explain them in my final arguments.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I mean he is just going to deny now natters that have arisen in these document books?
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, be sure that you confine your testimony to the new matters that you have not already testified to.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Yes, Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. RAUSCHENBACH:
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Witness, I want to remind you that when you testify today you are still under oath which you have already given here when you were called to the witness the first time. Q The prosecution in Document Book No. XXVII, as Dxhibit Nos. 645 to 648--those are Documents 4364, 4366, and 4780-
Q The prosecution in Document Book No. XXVII, as Dxhibit Nos. 645 to 648--these are Documents 4364, 4366, and 4780-
THE PRESIDENT: I just got the book. What is the Exhibit Number?
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: These are Exhibits No. 645 to 648.
Q Here we are talking about the approval for construction material as for as the construction of barracks is concerned. Witness, how were you brought in connection with the approval for the funds for the construction?
A That was an exceptional case. I can still recall it now. At that time a telephone call came from Buchenwald and we were told that a large number of inmates was expected which could not be accommodated. They told me that they immediately had to establish emergency barracks and needed funds in order to do that. I want to remind the Tribunal that in 1938 we were working under a so-called peacetime budget, that is to say, only those funds could be spent which had been contained in this peacetime budget. In order to be able to construct these barracks, Buchwald had to receive certain funds. At the time I made a telephone call to the Reich minister of Finance and I inquired there and by means of a teletype I passed on the approval for this construction project, because I had nothing to do with the construction itself, but it was just the approval for the funds. Why these 12,000 inmates were sent to the camp I don't know. However, I believe it had something to do with the occupation of Austria, because this happened a few weeks later. I don't think this can be brought into connection with the 9th of November, 1938, as the Prosecution has alleged.
Q Does this approval for construction funds for the barracks have anything to do with the following document, which is Exhibit 649 where the approval for funds for the construction of an emergency crematorium has been mentioned?
A No, it doesn't have the least thing to do with it. The same request of 1938 for this crematorium I saw in the same document book once more with the same amount of money and with the same reasons given there in 1940. Apparently it must have been disapproved in 1938. However, I can't give you any information about the question. I did not deal with that question.
Q. In Document Book No. XXVIII contains Exhibit 689, it is No-3722, and this is the agreement about the creating of a loan of 30,000,000 -
THE PRESIDENT: What Exhibit Number, Doctor?
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: It is Exhibit 689. It is in Document Book XXVIII.
Q Witness, what connection did this agreement have with the Reinhardt Action?
A There was no connection at all. The agreement confirms what I have already stated in my testimony in this witness stand, namely that the agreement does not refer at all to the Action Reinhardt. Now in the rebuttal the prosecution has submitted this agreement. It can be concluded from this that the agreement did not contain any secret clauses. It was quite open and public and it begins with the word, "The German Reich grants to the DWB." Therefore, this confirms my statement that it was a quite correct agreement where a location was granted on the part of the Reich to the Special DWB Enterprises.
Q Witness, I am now coming to Document Book No. XXX and I only have a question here in order to clarify something with regard to Exhibit 708. This is Document Book No. XXX, Exhibit 708. This is a letter of the Reichsfuehrer SS to the Defendant Pohl. In the English text in the document book and in the German, there is a file note printed, which states, "Dr. Frank." Did you have anything to do with that?
A No, apparently this is the Governor Frank. I had nothing to do with this document. I was not a doctor, either. I did not have a doctor's degree.
Q And you did not carry out any functions in the Field Headquarters of the Reichsfuehrer SS?
A No, never.
Q In Document Book XXXI we have Exhibit 711. This is Document NO-1592.
THE PRESIDENT: What number?
DR.RAUSCHENBACH: It is Document Book XXXI, Exhibit 711.
Q On page 3 of this document it is shown that in March 1933 you were entrusted with the management of the administrative affairs of the concentration camp Dachau. It is stated here, "The SS Man Frank is being charged with the conducting of the business affairs." How can you explain this letter?
A I must make one sentence here. As I have already stated on the witness stand, in 1933 I was employed on a full time basis by the SS. This must have been in the last days of March, but I didn't know it at the time I testified. I think I stated April.
At the time I was announced as a simple SS man. I only stayed in the administrative office for two or three days at the most and then I was told that I was to go to Dachau and that I was to establish the books. There was an expert needed there to establish the books which would take a few days. I went out there and at Dachau I found a concentration camp for the first time in my life.
THE PRESIDENT: He has testified to all this exactly before. This is just what he said before.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Your Honor, the Witness Frank has not been asked about this point of his activity in the concentration camp Dachau in 1933. He was only asked in general whether earlier he had anything to do with concentration camps.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, he said he didn't. He denied having anything to do with it and that is all he is doing now is denying it over again.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Your Honor, the Defendant Frank is just about to explain to us why the contents of this letter are actually incorrect, because without condition he was charged with the conducting of the administrative business. From this it could be assumed it was connected with an outstanding position and this cannot be the case. This is what I want to explain here.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, go ahead, but right to the point now.
Q Please explain very briefly with you, as an SS Private Frank could not be in charge of the administrative affairs at Dachau.
A I did not have any rank. I was an extremely small man there at the time. I want to explain above all that I was not a member of the staff of the concentration camp, but I was a member of the administrative office of the SS and I was employed in that capacity and I remained in that position. My assignment to Dachau at the time was that I was loaned to the camp, but it was extended from week to week and it was again renewed. At that time there were 150,000 men in the concentration camp. It was an extremely small camp and extremely primitive conditions existed there with regard to administration.
THE PRESIDENT: How long were you there?
THE WITNESS: I was there until October. I took care of the business there, but I never carried out any executive business, but an Untersturmfuehrer by the name of Fritz was actually in charge. I established the books of the administration and the books of the work shops.
THE PRESIDENT: You were there from March until October?
THE WITNESS: Yes, however, I was a member of the Administration Office of the SS. I was only loaned to the camp. I was not a member of the concentration camp staff. Then only in May was I appointed to the rank of a non commissioned officer. At that time the recommendation for promotion was disapproved. That also becomes evident from my personal file, which is in the hands of the Tribunal and on page 2 of this document it becomes clear that I did not belong to the staff of the concentration camp.
Q Now, my final question on page 9 of this Exhibit 711, where we have a character judgment by your chief, at the time, Pohl, as far as your own personality is concerned, where it is mentioned that since 1938 you had been his constant deputy. Witness, it does not agree with your testimony nor does it agree with the testimony which was given by Pohl who did not describe you as being his constant deputy at the time. Just how was this statement brought about in this letter?
A That was one of the customary exaggerations whenever a recommendation for promotion was made. The documents which you have were about the only charts of the so-called Administrative Main Office of Economy and Budget and Construction, that is to say, whatever happened in the Main Office of the Administrative Main Office. I was not a member of the Main Office, Construction and Budget, nor was I a member of the Main Office, Construction And Economy. Consequently, during that period of time in these three years, I could not have been Pohl's deputy. After all, I was in charge of the Administrative Office of the Waffen-SS and in that capacity I held a medium level. That is clearly shown by the documents.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: I have no further questions Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Haensel, at a quarter of two, Doctor, will you favor us with the program that you were interrupted in presenting, at quarter of two after the recess, please.
MR. ROBBINS: Your Honor, may I just ask one question of the witness?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, you told us that the construction matters at Buchenwald you thought were in connection with the invasion of Austria. Do you recall when the invasion of Austria took place?
A It was in March, 1938.
Q And this correspondence occurs at the end of June, 1938, does it not?
A Yes, four or six weeks later. I assume that these were the communists who were turned into the concentration camp. That was my personal opinion.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until quarter to two.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until 1345.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 4 September, 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, the exhibit is missing on the last document that I offered in evidence, which was inserted in the last book; and therefore ought to withdraw that. That's NO-1951, which was Exhibit 726. I would like to assign that number to the series of pictures which the witness Goldstein identified, the series of atrocities in Poland, which will be Exhibit 726. They are not ready yet but they will be shortly. Also, I believe I have cured the defect in the Thoms affidavit I have obtained, which was Exhibit 692, You will remember the discussion from yesterday. I have a certificate from the Chief Custodian of Exhibits of the International Military Tribunal that the document which I offered yesterday in Document Book XXVII, 3951-PS, is the same affidavit that was admitted into evidence as Exhibit USA-852 in the International Military Tribunal. If I may, I will hand it up to the Tribunal and offer as Exhibit 692.
DR. PRIBILLA ( for the defendant Tschentscher): Your Honor, with the permission of the Tribunal, I now should like to present my document book for Tschentscher.
THE PRESIDENT: It's just one book, Dr. Pribilla? No supplements?
DR. PRIBILLA: For the time being, your Honor, I have only this one book of which you have a translation. Then there is a small supplement. Perhaps I will have only a question there; and it is possible that I may withdraw the supplement. I then should like to submit first of all Tschentscher Document Number 1. This will become Exhibit Number 1. It is an affidavit of the witness Lindthaler, whom we did not call here personally.
He comments upon the various questions about the Office B/1. Then as Tschentscher Pister, who was the commandant of the Dachau concentration camp and who also deposed an affidavit for the prosecution, which he corrects here in several parts.
Tschentscher Document Number 3 will become Exhibit 3. This is a similar affidavit by Otto Barnewald. It also contains a correction. Tschentscher Document Number 4 will become Tschentscher Exhibit Number 4. This is an affidavit by Gerhadr Maurer of the Office D/IV of Office II in Office Group B. Here he talks about the distribution of authority and competences. This is followed by Tschentscher Document Number 5. I offer this document as Exhibit Number 5. It is an additional affidavit by Joseph Lindthaler; and it deals with the question of the employment of inmates within the main depots and the main economic depots.
Tschentscher Document Number 6 deals with the same question. I want to offer it as Tschentscher Exhibit Number 6. This is an affidavit by Andreas Woggel, commenting on the same question which the other document has dealt with. Tschentscher, Document Number 7, the affidavit of Gustav Bachmann, which will become Tschentscher Exhibit Number 7, also deals with the same question. A further affidavit by Tschentscher Document Number 8, which I offer as Exhibit 8, deals in a somewhat generalized form with the same question. This is the question of competence and authority for the employment of inmates and of how these measures were carried out in practice.
I then offer Tschentscher Document Number 9 as Exhibit 9, this being an affidavit by Dr. julius Hermann Ertel concerning questions pertaining to Office B/1. Tschentscher Document Number 10 will become Exhibit Number 10. This is an affidavit by Gergard Wiebeck. Wiebeck also deposed an affidavit for the prosecution; and here he goes into the various details as far as Tschentscher is concerned. Tschentscher Document Number 11 will become Tschentscher Exhibit Number 11, and is an affidavit by Walter Hoyer. It deals with the question which have arisen here in the course of this trial in connection with Tschentscher and his last days at Dachau, a short time before the end of the war. I offer Tschentscher Document Number 12 as Exhibit 12 and Tschentscher Document Number 13 as Tschentscher Exhibit 13.
Those two documents are certificates by American authorities from the time immediately following the surrender; and these documents show that Tschentscher worked there in order to discontinue the hostilities as quickly as possible and to turn in himself and his comrades as prisoners of war as quickly as possible.
Tschentscher Document Number 14 I shall offer as Exhibit Number 14. This also deals with the last days of the war and the questions which have been discussed here at various times about the food supply depot at Dachau, the economic depot at Dachau, and their relationship to concentration camp at Dachau. Then follows Tschentscher Document Number 15, which I offer as Exhibit Number 15 , and Tschentscher Document Number 16, which will become Exhibit Number 16. Then there is Tschentscher Document Number 17, which I offer as Exhibit 17. In the case of those three documents, we are dealing with affidavits by people who were close to Tschentscher during his activity and who are able to give a judgment as to his character and his entire activity.
Then we have Tschentscher Document Number 18, which I offer as Exhibit 18. This is a secrecy order with which you are already acquainted.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO): That's putting it very mildly when you say we are already acquainted with it.
DR. PRIBILLA: I had already included with this in the document book before I saw that various colleagues had done the same, your Honor. As Document Book II, I have prepared two additional documents with regard to the series of questions on experiments with food. At the time the Tribunal had already said that this whole question was settled, and I prepared these documents only because I read in the transcript that your Honor said at the time that an affidavit of the witness Ertel was to be submitted. However, I believe that the whole question has been settled so far; and if the Tribunal agrees with me, then I shall withdraw this document book.
DR. PRIBILLA: Your Honor, this way was my document book as far as it was prepared. As a result of the questions which have arisen in the course of the rebuttal which concern Tschentscher's activities during his time as a soldier at the front, I have now been forced to ask the Tribunal for permission to obtain some affidavits from men of Tschentscher's company or people wjp knew him in the military service. I therefore request that I be permitted to submit them additionally. Here we have four affidavits and I could mark them for identification at this time. Then I should like to submit them afterwards.
THE PRESIDENT: They have not been translated yet?
DP. PRIBILLA: No, your Honor, we shall submit them very soon. They haven't been translated yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Whenever they are ready, you may submit them. Whenover they are translated, you may submit them and we'll receive them later.
DR. PRIBILLA: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Haensel, did you have something to suggest?
DR. HAENSEL: (for the defendant Georg Loerner): I wanted to request permission of the Tribunal to address a very few questions to Loerner because in the course of the rebuttal two new documents have been submitted; and I should like to have a small correction made on their subject matter. Then I have just received the translation of my trial brief, and in a few minutes my Secretary will bring in the copies for the tribunal. These are statements about the questions of when membership in an organization is criminal according to Control Council Law Number 10, especially about the subject of what is understood by knowledge in the sense of the I.M.T. verdict in connection with Control Council Law Number 10, Article 2. I am now able and would like very much to do so, perhaps today, if we have some time, and the Tribunal wants to listen to things of that sort, we could deal with various subjects at that time.
I ask you to inform me about that because I believe that the material which is being submitted by my colleagues today will not take up very much more time and as far as I can see of the document books, only a very few have not been submitted yet. Only Volk of the defendants seems to want to go into the witness stand. If the Tribunal wants to hear anything along those lines. I am at their disposal. Otherwise, I shall submit my trial brief and then it will be there for the judicial notice of the Tribunal. As far as the sequence of the defendants who want to be heard is concerned. Volk has requested that he be called immediately because he does not feel very well. I on my part do not have any objections to that if the Tribunal should approve it. Then I shall repeat my request later on.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I request permission to call the defendant Volk to the witness stand for my examination. However, I need Document NO-4535, Exhibit 671, and the representative from the Secretary General's office has just informed me that he can procure that during the recess. I therefore would like to suggest that perhaps I can call the defendant Volk to the witness stand after the recess when Document NO-4535, Exhibit 671, has been procured.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let's call somebody and make some progress here. Is there anyone else with document books ready to present? Dr. Haensel, you wanted to call Georg Loerner. Let's do that first.
DR. HAENSEL( for the defendant Georg Loerner): May it please the Tribunal, I now should like to call the defendant Georg Learner to the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Haensel, this relates only to knew matters, of course.
GEORG LOERNER, a defendant, recalled as a witness on rebuttal and testified as follows:
THE COURT: Dr. Haensel, this relates only to new matters of course, and not to - all right! That's enough then.
DR. HAENSEL (For the defendant Georg Loerner): Yes, Your Honor.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q Will you please tell us your name?
A My name is Georg Loerner.
Q You have already been sworn in here as a witness, and you realize that what you have to say now will still come under the same oath?
A Yes.
Q I am now going to put to you Exhibit No. 701, which was presented by the Prosecution. It deals with Stutthoff, and the Prosecution made a remark in that respect that the document mentioned your name, and that thereby it has been proved that you must have contact with the concentration camp of Stutthof, is that correct?
A No, that is not correct. This is a full power in my capacity as second business manager of the DWB, which I as an exception signed once because Pohl was probably absent. This here is a full power for the change in a purchasing contract for the homes for the aged people in Stutthof. This is the same complex about which the defendant Dr. Volk has already testified at length here on the witness stand. This concerns the Settlement Protect and has nothing whatsoever to do with the concentration camp.
Q Very well. Your affidavit has further been put to us as Exhibit 690 which you gave on 7 December 1945 at Oberursel. Will you please tell us briefly whether any presentation of this document causes you to change anything in the testimony which you have given here already, or to add anything to it?
THE PRESIDENT: What number?
DR. HAENSEL: This is Exhibit 690. 6-9-0. This is contained in Document Book 28 on page 45. Document Book No. 28 on Page 45.
THE WITNESS: I do not want to change anything the testimony which I have given here on the witness stand. The statements which are contained in this affidavit are knowledge which is composed, first, of knowledge which I gained during my time in service; 2: Knowledge which I gained during the time of my imprisonment, and 3: things which the interrogator told me at the time. Of these three points this document is comprised.
Q I believe we can settle this whole matter very quickly by one question. Does this affidavit show us your knowledge of these things up to 7 December 1945, or does it show your knowledge for the period of time, which is the subject of the indictment here, or the period of time before the surrender or collapse?
A It contains my knowledge at that period of time, 7 December 1945.
Q So that many things are contained here which you did not have any knowledge of before the collapse?
A Yes.
DR. HAENSEL: That is all. No further questions.
(Witness excused).
DR. FROESCHMANN: Dr. Froeschmann for the defendant Mummenthey. Your Honor, may it please the Tribunal, I now would like to present my Document Book No. 3, and in connection with it I would like to discuss a special matter happening in the course of the trial which only came to my knowledge two days ago. However, before I start in the discussion of the document book, I would like to point out with permission of the Tribunal that in the transcript about the examination of the defendant Mummenthey, in the English translation, there are approximately one--hundred and fifty mistakes, in the translation, which district from the actual meaning. I have compiled a draft of these mistakes, and I would like to turn it in directly to the Tribunal, because I fear it would take too much time if it were routed through the Secretary-General's Office. I shall also give a copy of it to the Prosecution. The Tribunal will then be able to by virtue of this draft to correct the mistakes when studying the files.
My Document Book No. 3 begins with Mummenthey's Document No. 34.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal. It seems to me that the best thing to do would be to turn this over to the Translation Department, and to let them correct the transcript. I don't think it could be assumed that this is an official correction of the transcript. Probably if there are one-hundred and fifty mistakes, I think it probably ought to be checked and corrected in the official Translation Department.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, obviously, we will take Dr. Froeschmann's corrections, but we cannot incorporate them into the record until they have been checked by the Translation Department. There may be some fine distinctions here that even the court cannot handle. We wonder if any one else can do it, Mr. Robbins besides the Translation Division, which is on its back already. May be we might get Dr. Fried to do it, the legal consultant to the Tribunal. All right, he is a scholar. Let's us have your corrections, Dr. Froeschmann, your memorandum of corrections.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Very well, Your Honor. Your Honor, the last document which I had submitted was Exhibit No. 34. The first document which I want to offer to the Tribunal today is Mummenthey's Document No. 34 on page 1 of my document book No. 3. It is an affidavit by Josef Ackers, who is now a foundry proprietor at Velbert, of the 30 July 1947, signed by him on that date, and certified to by me. This affidavit refers to the large brick works at Oranienburg, and it deals with the time when the plant at Oranienburg was used for the production of ammunition. I would also like to point out to the Tribunal the paragraphs 6, 8 and 9 of the affidavit which deal with the work and the working hours, it shows in detail just how heavy the work was and the treatment of the inmates. This affidavit will show that also at Oranienburg the inmates received the heavy worker station, and other Privileges. That the treatment of the inmates at the plant by members of the Plant Staff was quite correct, and that privileges were introduced there by the defendant Mummenthey, about whom this affiant also gives the best character reference.