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.
This will become Exhibit No. 35.
The next document is Document No. 35. This is an affidavit by the inmate Ewald Schroth, of 30 July 1947, and signed by him on that date and certified to by me on that date. It is interesting for the reasons because he does describe not from the aspect of a plant manager, but from the aspect of inmates, treatment of the inmates at Oranienburg, and, in particular, he also tells us about Mummenthey's behavior, and deals with Mummenthey's behavior towards the inmates. In paragraph 3 he deals with the Punitive Company which have been mentioned so often and he also points out that these Punitive Companies were known to be subordinate to the camp administration exclusively and had nothing to do with the plant management of the DEST. In the first paragraph of this affidavit he deals with the working hours, and the work, and in paragraph 10 he says, "I only knew Mummenthey from his kind side. One time as the result of having a foot injury I lay in my billets. He visited me and inquired after my health. Inspite of the expressed prohibition of the camp commandant, he helped me, and he saw to it that my daughter could visit me." In two outstanding cases, he stated that Mummenthey had helped political inmates, he was one of them, not to be conscripted into the so-called Dirlewanger Division. He then speaks of the numerous privileges which were offered to inmates at Oranienburg, additional pay, better billets, special allotment of cigarettes, and further privileges which were given to them by the plant management. He concludes the affidavit by saying in the conflict known to me which existed between the plant management and the camp commandant, Mummenthey always took the side of the plant management and in so doing, directly or indirectly also of the prisoners. This document will become Exhibit No. 36.
My next document will be Document No. 36, which is on page 14 of my document book.
It is an affidavit of Werner Kahn, who was the plant manager of Neuengamme, who speaks about the equipment and installations of the plant there, in detail. The affidavit is of 29 July 1947, which was signed by him on that date, and certified to by me. The photographs which the witness gave to me then I have already included in the document book, and I ask the Tribunal to accept them now. This document will become Exhibit No. 37.
My next document will be Document No. 37, on page 18 of my Document Book. This is an affidavit of Karl Blumberg, which is dated. 26 July 1947, which was signed by him on that date, and certified to by me. This affidavit refers to Natzweiler, and I was able to also have the plant manager describe the plant there. He describes the good relationship which existed there between the inmates, and the civilian personnel, and he also pointed out that the privileges which had been introduced for the inmates by him in agreement with the Central Agency at Berlin, which was Mummenthey. This will become Exhibit No. 38.
My next document will be Document No. 38. This is an affidavit by Roman Fuerth, who was the construction engineer of the construction department at Oranienburg. It is contained on page 28 of my document book. The affidavit was given on 22 July 1947, and certified to by me. It is extremely extensive and describes in detail how the plant at Oranienburg was established, and then it also deals again with the attitude of the Central Management and the plant management towards the inmates, and like all other affidavits it points out that a large number of the privileges mentioned in paragraph 13 are the result of Mummenthey's initiative. This document will become Exhibit No. 39.
My next document will be Document No. 39. This is an affidavit of the plant director,Carl Peters, dated 26 July 1947, signed by him on that date one certified by Dr. Baumann, the chief physician of the district hospital at Buchenheim, Baden. It refers to the inspection and the actual state of the plant at Sachsenhausen-Oranienburg. This will become Exhibit No. 40.
The next document is Document No. 40. This is an affidavit by the former Vice-President of the German Reichs Bank, Emil Puhl, dated 26 July. It is signed by him on that date, and is certified to by me on the same date. This was done in order to rebut or refute the claim of the Prosecution that the funds which the DEST received from the Gold Discount Bank in 1939 had anything to do with the notorious Reinhardt Action, or any other action of that sort. It describes quite clearly that the funds which the DEST received at that time came from normal funds of the Reichsbank. The document will become Exhibit No. 41.
My next document will be Document No. 41. This is an affidavit of Dr.Karl Maria Hettlage. It refers to various negotiations which took place in the DEST in 1938 and 1939, and which also have already been subject to the Indictment and evidence submitted. I would like to point out that this document will become Exhibit No. 42.
The next document will be Document No. 42, Exhibit No. 43, which is a statement of the protestant vicarage of Hilchenbach to the effect that Karl Mummenthey in spite of being a member of the SS, has been married in church and that his children were baptized.
This will become Exhibit No. 43. Document No. 43 and the following documents describe the mount of work to be done by the inmates at the time at the plant, the DEST itself and compares this work with what is happening at the present time. Document No. 43 becomes Exhibit No. 44. Document No. 44 will become Exhibit No. 45. Document No. 46 will become Exhibit No. 47, and Document No. 46 will become Exhibit No. 46, and, Document 47 will become Exhibit No. 47. I do not want to submit Document No. 45. I only state in this document that the idea of forced labor is still today exercised by one of the Allied Powers, and successfully carried out by the Soviet Union today at Oberschlesia.
Your Honor, I have now completed my presentation of document Book No. 3. and now I still have to deal with Supplement No. 2, which I have already announced this morning, and then furthermore, Document Book No. 4 and Supplement No. 3.
Your Honor, I now would like to discuss a matter which I had announced before. I would like to request a ruling of the Tribunal on that subject. The Tribunal will be able to recall that on 14 April 1947, the Trustee of Property Control at Fulda, Josef Krysiak, was examined in this Tribunal. He tried to very strongly incriminate the DEST and Mummenthey at Mauthausen. The Tribunal will further recall that on 5th August the President of this Court granted me the permission to look at the penal record of this witness should I be able to determine his place of birth and his date of birth. Through the Secretary-General's Office this penal register was obtained, and I received it two days ago. This is an official document which is extremely important. It comes from a German Agency, and it is so important because by means of this penal register I was able to determine that this witness had the effrontery to lie to the Prosecution, the Tribunal and the Defense in the most incredible manner and that he not only here but also in the Milch Trial committed plain perjury. This man who describes himself as the Trustee of Property control at Fulda; he managed to obtain that position there, is a man who has been punished eight times because of embezzlement; and altogether he has been sentenced to twelve years penitentiary and he was already sentenced to death on one occasion, because of different offenses, such as embezzlement, or larcem-a cy, or things of that sort.
When I received this penal register I considered it my duty to investigate and to see whether I could receive his files. Since in the justice case one defendant was connected with these files, it was possible for me to obtain to also the files of the German Courts, and this was the District Court at Nurnberg. This penal file contains the detailed statement of the defendant himself about his life, about his punishments, and about the time he was sent to jail for security reasons. I also have this file here. I received it from the Registry Office of the Prosecution. I do not wait to keep these important files for a long time in my custody, and I request therefore that I can now turn over these files to the Court today. I would like to say the following very briefly on that subject: Your Honor will be able to recall that he himself, as well as the Prosecutor, asked the witness Krysiak, where did you study, what did you study, and what are you by profession. At the time he said that he had studied at Zurich, and at Charlottenburg, had passed his final examination, at the Technical High School in the year of 1936. From the files it becomes evident that Krysiak only received a secondary school education for two years, and that since 1925 for the duration of three years he learned the butcher trade. Then he wandered around, had lived the life of a tramp. It was only interrupted when he had to serve terms in jail. Already in 1930 he had his first conflict with the law, and this was not only with the German courts, but on two occasions he was also in conflict with the Swiss courts in Zurich and Bern. Up to the year of 1936 this penal register did show eight requests for punishments. Your Honor asked the defendant at this time, what is your profession, the Prosecutor asked him, what is your profession, and he stated he was an engineer with a diploma; not a word of that was true.
He has been an underground construction worker; he never went to a technical school, never studied and never passed an examination there, and, he did dare to lie to the Prosecution and to the Tribunal under oath here on two occasions.
The witness Krysiak further stated, upon questioning by the President of the Court, that in the year 1939 he had been arrested by the Gestapo and, without any court proceedings, had been sent to a concentration camp. Perhaps Your Honor can still recall this question. The witness Krysiak then had the unbelievable effrontery to answer to this question of the President, and he said, "Yes, without any trial proceedings, I was sent to a concentration camp, and from the year 1940 until the year 1945 I was at Mauthausen."
However, this file shows that the witness Krysiak in December 1939, because he had falsely described himself as a captain of an engineers unit--and I have the pictures here--was arrested and at the same time he was arrested because he had engaged in bigamy to the greatest extent with women. He had the nerve to go to a delegate of a special military commission which worked with the Messerschmidt plant, and he talked to them at the station in Regensburg, and this man was asked later on, "With whom did you have a conversation there?" and he said that this was an officer who was a member of this commission. Then the person concerned was told that this was not correct, and that is how the whole misrepresentation was uncovered.
The bigamous Krysiak, who is now an official with the Trusteeship Agency at Fulda, was arrested then by the police, by the criminal police, was sent before the investigation judge, and a very extensive investigation was carried out against him. An indictment was prepared against him. He was given a defense counsel, and at Regensburg a trial took place before a regular court. Through this court, because of embezzlement, misrepresentation, nigamy, the wearing of a uniform and the wearing of unauthorized medals, he was sentenced twice to death. This punishment, be decree of the Reich Minister of Justice, was changed by pardon to ten years in jail.
Your Honor, with this speech I want to prove to you that a witness has appeared here who has given a plain perjury and who did not hesitate at endangering the lives of all the defendants here.
May I say one more thing. In the year 1942, in February of that year, he was sentenced, and from the year 1940 on, he was uninterruptedly in penal installations until the end of the year 1942. At the end of the year 1943 this man, as a dangerous habitual criminal, was turned over to the police. Then I believe in the year 1943 he must have been sent to Mauthausen. However, he lied here, and he stated that from 1 January 1940 he was at Mauthausen uninterruptedly until 1945. Everything that the witness has told here about the years 1941 and 1943 he could have heard only through here say. However, I do not want to go into that. Today I want only to show and to prove by submitting the files that a witness has appeared here who has dared to deceive you. None of us up to now would have thought of seeing such an evil criminal in this man.
I shall turn the photographs over to the Tribunal. I have a picture of him in the witness stand and the photograph which was taken by the Criminal Police. The Tribunal can convince themselves that this is the same man.
As a German Defense Counsel, I consider it my duty to say these things in public, because I am convinced that other witnesses also could be found who might have deceived the Tribunal in the same manner, and they may already have sealed the fate of many people concerned.
I shall also point out that the labor book of the witness Krysiak is available here. From this I can prove that this man, without a gap until the year 1939, never worked in the Messerschmitt plant, which he also stated here under oath. All of his testimony consisted of lies from the beginning to the end.
I now ask the Prosecutor, who will probably agree with me, to see to it that, first of all, this man Krysiak, who has managed to become a trustee with the Property Control at Fulda, be sent where he belongs -- to jail, because, first of all, he has not even served the term of imprisonment to which he was sentenced, and then he should also be sentenced because of perjury before the American Military Tribunal, which he has carried out here on two occassions.
That is what I wanted to say, and that is why I "anted to request that these two documents, the penal record of Krysiak and the German penal files -- I would like to turn them in to the Tribunal, so that I shall not have to keep them any longer. In the last two days, I have had a copy made of all the important pages in the file, and this morning I have turned them in to the Secretary General as Supplement No. 2 to my documents. I anticipate that, up to 15 September, these documents will have been copied and translated so that the Tribunal will be able to see the correctness of my speech.
I am now concluding my speech by saying that I regret extremely that the Tribunal has listened to this liar and convict and that they have become a victim of him, just like the Prosecution and the Defense. They did not see to it by obtaining the penal register that such a thing could happen here before an American Tribunal.
May it please the Tribunal, I shall now turn in the file of the District Attorney at the District Court of Nurnberg referring to Krysiak, Josef, at Augsburg, according to the National Safety Law. This is File 261/41, and the documents contained therein and also Document No. 71. This is the penal record which has been handed to me by the Penal Registry Office at Dortmund. This Document No. 71 will become Exhibit No. 47 and 48. I now offer them to the Tribunal.
We could say here in Shakespear's words. The remainder is silent."
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consult with the Prosecuting Attorney during the recess, Dr. Froeschman, and determine what steps shall be taken.
DE. FROESCHMANN: Very well, Your Honor. Thank you.
DR. BELZER (Counsel for defendant Sommer): Your Honor, the tribunal has just taken notice of a request for corrections from my colleague Froeschmann, and it has decided that this correction should be turned over to the Legal Advisor. On 15 August I made a similar request for corrections and submitted it to the Tribunal. I do not know whether the Tribunal has received the translation of this request. I am not dealing with 150 mistakes but with only 31 mistakes, which detract from the actual meaning and which I have discovered in the examinations of the witnesses Rammler, Caesar, and the defendant Sommer as a witness in his own behalf.
I request the Tribunal to rule and to see to it that this request for correction should be treated in the same manner as will be done with the request for correction from my colleague Froeschmann -- that it be turned over to the Legal Advisor.
THE PRESIDENT: You did not serve it on the Tribunal, did you? We didn't get a copy of it.
DR. BELZER: I turned this in through the secretary general's office on 15 August to Military Tribunal No. II.
THE PRESIDENT: We have not received it yet.
DR. BELZER: I can give the Tribunal another copy of the same request today.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, all right. Did you have it translated into English?
DR. BELZER: No. On 15 August I made this request to the Tribunal, and I have not heard anything about it since.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you ready to proceed with your documents now? Have you documents to present?
DR. BELZER: I can offer my Supplement No. 3. However, Supplement No. 4 is missing. This is a single document. However, the two supplements are related to each other. They refer to the affidavit and the testimony of the witness Sanner. Consequently, it would be appropriate to offer both supplements at the same time.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold?
DR. BERGOLD: I have three questions of the defendant Klein.
THE PRESIDENT: After the recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for about fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)