Dr. Landfried and Kranefuss who were both members of the Board of Treuarbeit, agreed to clarify the whole question by bringing in the Reich's own Treuarbeit."
The witness then talks about the first conference with Pohl and says in the about middle of page 2 of this document, "Pohl stressed in the discussion that the question must be cleared up whether the DWB and the Koncern companies were to be regarded as public enterprises, Reich enterprises, or as NSDAP enterprises or as private enterprises. I pointed out in the discussion that the question could only be decided on the basis of a thorough audit of the DWB, as a result of which ownership of DWB shares would be established in particular, and also the sources of capital for the DWB and the Konzern companies....Pohl then, in the further conversations Pohl and Kranefuss sketched the DWB Konzern for me."
From there the witness goes on to say that he expressed his misgivings for this idea that he had suggested and that it would be a good idea in order to clear up the whole question to have internal auditing operations.
He then goes on to describe that one morning the defendant Baier came to see him and described himself as the man who was to set up this internal auditing and that he was to discuss with him all questions of interest for this internal auditing.
The affiant on page 7 of this document then speaks about Baier's personality, and he says in the first paragraph -
THE PRESIDENT: Let us read it ourselves, Dr. Fritsch. We can read about his personality.
DR. FRITSCH: If the court plase, I shall offer Document No. 8 as Exhibit No. 9, which is an affidavity by Arthur Haleck, and I would like to point out briefly that this man Haleck is a member of the Court of Auditors of the German Reich, who discussed with Defendant Baier the various financial questions. Baier at that tim arranged for the finances of the Reich and the DWB be kept separate. The Tribunal will recall that the prosecution in some cases has alleged that these financial agencies of the WVHA had attempted to save this money for the SS Enterprises. I believe that here I have proved that the contrary applies.
I shall then submit Baier Document No. 9, which will become Exhibit No. 10. This is an affidavit by Herma Brachvogel, who was once a bookkeeper with the DWB and she says in this affidavit that Baier was essentially busy on auditing problems and that had been his hobby horse.
The next document which will be Haier No. 10 and I shall mark it as Exhibit No. 11, is an affidavit by Otto Barnewald. I would like to draw the Tribunal's attention to paragraph 6 of this affidavit, which I have carried out by the American interrogating officer Dachau. The witness Dr. Kogan had stated here that the so-called inmates' money, that is to say, those amounts which were sent to thr inmates by relatives, were really passed on to the WVHA and spent by the WVHA. In this affidavit, the witness states, and I shall quote, at the bottom of the pare, "During my activity as leader of the concentration camp administration, such a case has not come to my knowledge.
It was strictly forbidden to pay the money, belonging to the inmates, to others than the inmates themselves."
The affidavit also confirms that Staff W at no time was concerned with the accounting of concentration camps money, as far as the WVHA was concerned. The auditing was taken care of by Office A-IV.
I shall then submit Baier Document No. 11, which will become Exhibit No. 2, which is an affidavit by Kurt Lindow. This affiant was a specialist in the RSHA for the Department for Communists. He says himself in his affidavit that he was in a very good position to see everything about the competence as far as committing somebody to or releasing somebody from a concentration camp. From, this document I would like to point out that the witness states that the question of release and the committing to concentration camps was entirely a matter of the RSHA and that the WVHA had nothing to do with these things. The affiant also confirms in this affidavit that it was extremely difficult to get into a concentration camp for anybody and he says that he himself, although he was working in that particular department, only managed to go once and inspect the Oranienburg concentration camp.
The affiant also states in his affidavit, and I shall quote from page 3, "In any case, we could not see anything unworthy of human dignity." And he was talking about a report of Oranienburgs concentration in 1938 or the beginning of 1939. I have submitted this affidavit, because also Defendant Baier, as a witness, confirmed that he had seen a concentration camp and that is experiences were identical with the ones of this affiant here.
As Baier Document Do. 12, I am submitting as Exhibit 13, an affidavit by Wolfram Sievers. I would like to point out here that the prosecution have offered a document and it would seem that they wanted to prove that Staff W and in particular that the Defendant Baier, were connected with medical experiments and the production of the Polygal drug. In this statement the prosecution was told that the Herman Medical Supply, G.m.b.H., which was part of Staff W had produced that drug. The witness Sievers, who has given me this affidavit which I am now submitting was the man responsible for the exploitation of this drug. He confirms here that it was not the German Medical Supply G.M.b.H., that produced that drug, but some other company.
As Document No. 13 and Exhibit No. 14, I shall submit an affidavit by Berta S chiroczin. This is a stateless individual who for many years worked with Baiers family in Dachau, and here she tells us all about her own observations concerning the concentration camp inmates and so forth. I would like to have references to the contents of this document and ask the court to excuse me from reading the five pages of this document.
I shall now come to Document Baier No. 14, which is Exhibit No. 15. That document has been signed by Frau Friedil Haug. Frau Haug lived near Baier's home in Dachau-
THE PRESIDENT: This is a character affidavit, Dr. Fritsch.
DR. FRITSCH: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: We'll read it.
DR. FRITSCH: Then as Document Baier No. 15, I shall offer Exhibit No. 13; which is an affidavit by Hinrich Albers of Bremerhaven who is well acquainted with Baier's former activity with the Finance Offices. This document and the Baier Document No. 16, which I shall offer as Baier Exhibit No. 17, both deal with the question of Baier's work with the Finance Offices, his training and the fact that on the whole he was working on auditing and taxation problems.
The next document is Baier No. 18, which I am offering as Exhibit No. 19. If the Tribunal please, here again we have a character affidavit, but may I in this case ask to point particulary to this document This document and the following one, which is Baier No. 19 and Exhibit No. 20 -- they are two affidavits which seem to me to be particularly vital. Defendant Baier on the witness stand said on his own that although he did so reluctantly but for reasons of certain influences he employed three gardeners in his gardens who came from a concentration camp. I have succeeded in tracking down two of these three. They volunteered on their own when they heard about this trial. The third inmate unfortunately is dead.
Now, in the case of Exhibits 19 and 20, we are concerned with two Polish Catholic priests. Both of the say unanimously that they owe it only to Baier that they survived the concentration camp. They also saw that they did not tell Baier anything about their own difficulties at the time. 7460 He simply took care of them for reasons of general humanity; protected them in every sense of the word; and, as any decent human being would do, he treated them.
From exhibit Number 20 of Jan Piechowiak I should like to read one passage. After Peichowiak had stated that from 2 May 1940 until 29 April 1945 be was an inmate of Dachau concentration camp; he says that from February 1942 until April 1945 he was attached as a gardener to the labor detachment of the SS School for Administrative Leaders. He also says that during this period of time, he was subordinated to Baier who was the commander of the school.
He continues as follows: "During this time of three years and two months of my being there, Herr Baier, and his whole family have always treated me and my fellow-workers very humanely and very considerably. Baier had always a good word for us and was always correct and polite. He knew that I was a Polish Catholic priest, but he nevertheless took stops to get me out of the camp." Then he continues, "If I survived the camp with some of my health still intact, I owe this above all to Herr Baierand his family."
I shall now come to Document Book Number II. The first document Baier Number 20, which is Exhibit Number 21, is a supplementary affidavit to the affidavit which I have just quoted in extract. I should recommend the contents of this affidavit to the Court's attention. It simply gives more details of what the affiant has been speaking of before. In the third paragraph on the first page there is a slight mistake in the translation. May I read the first sentence:
"Referring to my statement in the affidavit of 21 March 1947, namely, that during the camp famine we received some food from the Baier family, I should add that the term 'camp famine' was coined by myself". Could I draw the Tribunal's attention to the fact that he has spoken of "some food." Should the word "some" not be stricken out?
THE PRESIDENT: What is the opinion of the interpreter?
INTERPRETER KURTZ: I don't personally think so, Your Honor. He speaks of certain items of food. One could say "certain items of food."
DR. FRITSCH: If Your Honors please, I am not a linguist, but I was merely struck by the phrase, and I thought that this word "some" would belittle this. It's not a very important point. I simply thought I should draw your attention to it.
THE PRESIDENT: Food is food, Dr. Haensel, I thought you might have the answer in your book.
DR. FRITSCH: On Page 2 of this affidavit there I really think is a mistake in he translation. To read from the last paragraph: "In conclusion I must emphasize again that the attitude of Herr Baier and his whole family towards us was in every respect blamelessly humane. Therefore, I can say without any modification that Herr Baier's attitude towards the prisoners was not only above reproach but also I can say that he behaved towards them all the time in a helpful way. As it may be seen in my own case." The mistake has already been corrected.
As Baier Document Number 21 I offer as Exhibit 22 an affidavit by Caroline Carstens. I should like to draw attention to what I have said before about the inmates who worked for Baier. I stated that one of them had already died but that during his illness he told his nurse details of his life in the concentration camp. This nurse confirms the fact here that he also described Baier as the man who helped him over the hard time in the concentration camp.
THE PRESIDENT: Third degree hearsay--the dead man told the nurse and the nurse tells the Court what the dead man thought about Baier.
DR. FRITSCH: If the Tribunal please, I simply wanted to track down the third one; but as he is dead the nurse had to suffice.
THE PRESIDENT: May he rest in peace!
DR. FRITSCH: Then there is Baier Document Number 22, which will become Exhibit Number 3. This is an affidavit by Dr. Kurt Hoepfner, who was an auditor with Staff W. May I recommend the contents of this document to the attention of the Court as I assume that the Court will read it itself? The last document, if Your Honors please, is Baier Document Number 23 in Document Book II, and I offer this as Exhibit Number 24. This is an affidavit of a woman, which does not intend to give a picture of Baier's character; but by means of her testimony I want to prove the following. In this Court we have frequently heard of resistance and opposition to orders and so on. This lady happened to come across Baier. To give you her life history in five sentences, it goes like this. Her husband was a captain with the police in Holland. After the firth of her fifth child, the husband, referring to an order which existed, asked to be transferred back home. This was interpreted as a piece of cowardice. He was demoted and committed to a concentration camp. This has something to do with Baier himself as he attempted at the time to help this woman. He was, however, unsuccessful. This brings me to the end of my offer of documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there other documents? Are you ready, Dr. Haensel, to present documents? What about documents, exhibits? Are there any more that are ready? Do you have some documents to offer, Dr. Haensel?
DR. HAENSEL: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you, Dr. Von Stein?
DR. VON STEIN: Yes.
THE RESIDENT: We will take five minutes' recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for five minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have Book Number I?
DR. VON STEIN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Don't read the document unless it's necessary.
DR. VON STEIN: Very well, Your Honor. With the Document Eirenschmalz Number 1, which will be Exhibit Number 1, I am submitting as an affidavit of Heinrich Krone. This is a rebuttal affidavit which was taken down in the presence of a representative of the prosecution. In Document NO-2197, which was Exhibit Number 53, Krone stated that Eirenschmalz was always informed about everything the SS garrison administrations did; in particular he was informed when gas chambers and crematoria did not function; and he would then take the proper measures. In his new affidavit Krone has now refuted these statements and made corrections, that only the local building agencies concerned knew about these repairs but not Office C/VI.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have the exhibit number of this prior affidavit, the number of the first affidavit?
DR. VON STEIN: Number 53. He has also stated that from his own experience he had no knowledge of repair work done in crematoria and gas chambers. He also states that the Buchenwald crematorium was built in the course of 1940. From 1934 until 1942 Krone worked in Esterwegen, Sachsenhausen, and Buchenwald concentration camps. He was appointed by the former Gruppenfuehrer Eicke. In 1937 and 1938 Eicke gave the order that the electric shelter should be constructed in Buchenwald. The SS administrative office was, throughout the period of his activity, never important.
Document Number 2, which will be Exhibit Number 2, is also a rebuttal affidavit by Hans Eichele. This affiant said in his earlier affidavit that the order to build the crematorium in Dachau was issued by the Main Office Budget and Building in 1940, and he then mentioned Eirenschmalz's name. In his new affidavit Eichele has cleared up this mistake because he was under the impression that at that time Eirenschmalz was still with the Office Budget and Building.
But now he states that the farmer Sturmbannfuehrer Heidelberg was the first office chief at that time and not Eirenschmalz. As a matter of fact, Eichele could not find out who really gave the order to build the crematorium. Eichele was the man in charge of the garrison administration of Dachau in 1940. He stated that that garrison administration was responsible for the carrying out of repair work, for which they had their own workshops and supplied the material. All repair work was done without a special permission being necessary, and the bill was passed on to A/IV and not C/VI.
DR. VON STEIN: Document No. 3--
THE PRESIDENT: What was the exhibit number of Eirenschmalz's first affidavit?
DR. VON STEIN: I only have the number NO-2325. Document No. 3 will become Eirenschmalz Exhibit No. 3, and it is an affidavit given by OSWALD POHL in Document NO-2616, which was Exhibit No. 325, Pohl said in paragraphs 11, 12, 16, 17 and 18 and made statements on raw material quotas and control possibilities with regards to building enterprises by the Office C-6 connections between Office-C and the Building Constructions which were carried through at Auschwitz, and the accounts referring thereto. These statements have been corrected by Pohl in his new affidavit, and he expressed the thought that he did not make any observations of his own in these matters, and that he had based his earlier statement on assumption.
THE PRESIDENT: The translation of the exhibit number was incorrect. I think it is 523.
DR. VON STEIN: 325.
THE PRESIDENT: It is 523 in the affidavit.
DR. VON STEIN: 325, yes. Eirenschmalz Exhibit No. 4 will be Document No. 4. It is an affidavit of Hans Maibach. He was a colleague of Eirenschmalz in the WVHA from 1 February 1942 until the end of the war. He described in detail the work done by the Main Departments C-6 I-III. He particularly deals with the construction process concerning gas chambers and cremators, and he emphasizes that Office C-6 had no points of contact with gas chambers and cremators. As to Eirenschmalz's deputizing for Kammler, Maibach said that he did not know of a single instance where Eirenschmalz deputized for Kammler. He also makes statements about the unimportance of the so-called expert conferences with Kammler, and he expressed the opinion that Kammler was not interested in Office C-VI.
Document No. 5 will be Exhibit No. 5, and this is an affidavit of Frau Christl Baatz. She was a draftsman in the Eirenschmalz's office from February 1942 until the end of the war. She was obliged to go to the WVHA. She was once A Czech National, and is politically speaking without any incrimination. She is now living in Austria. On the basis of her own observations, she described these fair tasks of Office C-VI, in particular she comments on the question of construction and the maintenance of crematora, gas chambers and laboratories for experimental purposes, and said that C-VI never took any part in these things. She also comments on Eirenschmalz's deputizing for Kammler, and also makes it clear that no such deputizing was ever done in the period of time under review. As for Eirenschlz relationship to Kammler, and his participation in conferences of experts, and in particular as to Eirenschmalz's contact with his own subordinates, Frau Baatz gives detailed statements. Document No. 6 will be Exhibit No. 6, and it is an affidavit of Paul Kother. He was from 1936 with the garrison administration in Munich in 1940, he joined the SS Special Task Unit, and on February 1942 he was transferred to the WVHA, in particular to Office C-VI under Eirenschmalz. Kother said that Eirenschmalz in 1939 took care of the requirements of the SS Special Task Unit of the Reich Building Administration sofar as construction was concerned. He is indicating that Eirenschmalz was not concerned with the tasks of the Administration of buildings belonging to the SS Death head Units. Office C-VI sofar as to tasks of construction and maintenance is minutely described by Kother. He speaks about the obtaining of material through a competent official. He states that sofar as the maintenance of gas chambers and crematora was concerned, Office C-VI had nothing to do with it.
The Main Department C-VI-III which deal with accounting workers, was the department which covered the main field of tasks of Office C-VI. Eirenschmalz finally, it is stated, never deputized for Kemmler.
Eirenschmalz Document No. 7 will become Exhibit No. 7, and this is an affidavit by Emil Thiere, He Was from July 1944 until the end of the war in WVHA, and he was under Eirenschmalz in Office C-VI.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr Von Stein, we have got to read all of those documents, and it is very hard on you to have to read then for us. These affidavits we have to read them anyway.
DR VON STEIN: Mr President, I am endeavoring to give you only a very brief statement of the contents of the documents. I am not reading them.
THE PRESIDENT: Even so, we have to start at the beginning and read the while affidavit ourselves, and it seems that Dr Haensel would have said, "It is love labor lost." Don't you think so?
DR VON STEIN: Then I shall merely submit the document by their number and that will suffice.
THE PRESIDENT: I think so.
DR VON STEIN: Document Eirenschmalz No. 8 will be Exhibit No. 8. This is an affidavit of Hans Weber, who was also one of Eirenschmalz calleagues. I shall then submit Document No. 9, which shall be Exhibit No. 9. The document being affidavit of August Schaper, another employee of the WVHA. Document Eirenschmalz No. 10 will be Exhibit No. 10, which is the affidavit of Heinz Schuermann. He was working on the staff of Office Group-C. Document Eirenschmalz No. 11 will be Exhibit No. 11, which is an affidavit by Georg Braun. He also was one of Eirenschmalz colleagues. Document Eirenschmalz No. 12 will be Exhibit No. 12, and it is an affidavit of Amtsrat Haleck, in the Reich Fiscal Department (Ruchmumgshof) Document Eirenschmalz No. 13 is an excerpt from the relevant decree of the State Budget regulations.
Document Eirenschmalz No. 14 will be Exhibit No. 14 and this is an excerpt regarding the directives for preparation of construction projects. Document Eirenschmalz No. 15 will be Exhibit No. 15. It is again a copy of the official State Budget of the Waffen SS. Document Eirenschmalz No. 16 which will be Exhibit No. 16, is an affidavit of Konrad Schmidt. Document Eirenschmalz 17 will be Exhibit No. 17. It is an affidavit of Elizabeth Krausser, which is a character affidavit about Eirenschmalz's personality. Document Eirenschmalz No. 18 will be Exhibit No. 18, and it is an affidavit of Frau Erika Bergdte, once again mainly concerned with Eirenschmalz's personality. Document Eirenschmalz No. 19 will be Exhibit No. 19, and it is an affidavit of Ella Fiedler, and again an affidavit about Eirenschmalz's character. Eirenschmalz No. 20 will be Exhibit No. 20, and it is an affidavit of the defendant's sister, Elizabeth Eirenschmalz.
I am not in a position to submit documents of my Document Book No. 2, because they have not been translated. I shall now submit from Book No. 3 the last two documents. They are not available as yet?
THE PRESIDENT: No. We have not received them as yet.
DR. VON STEIN: Well, I only have another document book, and Book No. 3 consists of only two documents and they were sent to the Translation Department many weeks ago, and I can only submit them, of course, when they are translated.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it is plain that we cannot finish the introduction of documents and their proof tonight, so we are about to recess now until Monday morning, the 15th of September, Monday.
DR. LEIS: Dr. Leis for the defendant Kiefer. If the Tribunal please, the document book which I am about to offer only consists of two affidavits, and I shall not take up much time presenting them.
The first affidavit, which is Kiefer Document No. 1, I beg to offer as Exhibit No. 1, as an affidavit given by Kiefer's wife, and the document shows that the Defendant Kiefer was drafted into the Wehrmacht, and transferred to the Waffen-SS, and as such was attached to the Office of Budget and Buildings. The second affidavit, which is Kiefer's Document No. 2, I offer as Kiefer Exhibit No. 2, and it is an affidavit by Werner Corte of 20 June 1947, showing that Corte for more than a year was working in Dr. Kammler's Special Staff as an expert. The affidavit gives a clear description of the origin, the organization, and the tasks of the Special Staff. It furthermore gives a most interesting list of the various subsidiary posts held by Dr. Kammler in the course of time, besides the activity in Office Group-C. As far as the outer form is concerned, I wish to point out that the English translation of this affidavit by mistake does not give his signature. The original, of course, has been signed. That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess then until Monday morning, September the 15th at 9:30, at which time we will hear the rest of the proof to be followed immediately by the arguments, a summing up.
MR. ROBBINS: I thought Your Honor said the 16th?
THE PRESIDENT: I mean following immediately. I did mean the arguments are to follow on Tuesday morning, provided we are through with the proof, which we should be. We are in recess then until September 15th at 9:30 o'clock.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until the 15th of September at 0930.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 15 September 1947 at 0930 hours).
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Oswald Pohl, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 15 September 1947, 1345-1630, Justice Toms, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal No. II.
Military Tribunal No. II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has before it the motion of Dr. Seidl for the Defendant Pohl, asking that he be allowed six hours in which to present his argument. The motion will be denied, but three hours will be allowed. Any argument which Dr. Seidl is unable to present orally may by submitted to the Tribunal in writing and will be read and considered as fully as if he had read it in open court.
The petition of Dr. Heim for two hours for the Defendant Hohbert will be denied. He will be allowed the hour and a half which other counsel are allowed.
Dr. Fritsch has petitioned the court for leave to present his argument last; by reason of his having been to Norway with another Tribunal he has not had sufficient time. Permission is granted to Dr. Fritsch to argue last among the defense counsel.
All right, Mr. Robbins.
MR. ROBBINS: I have only one or two matters to clear up. First I should like to offer in evidence the documents in Book XXXIII that concern three different matters. The first one, NO-4964, which will be Exhibit 727, and the second one, 4965, which will be Exhibit 728, are memoranda of conferences of all of the office chiefs of Amtsgruppe W, in which Pohl orders regular cooperation among the offices.
The next documents, the next three documents are affidavit -
DR. GAWLIK (Attorney for the Defendants Bobermin and Volk): Your Honor, I want to object to the presentation of these documents. The prosecution has had sufficient time to submit these documents before. We have now concluded our final arguments and it is necessary for us to comment on these documents. I therefore request -- and this is only with regard to the two documents that concern my client, 4964 and NO-4965 -- I request that they not be admitted, because they have been presented too late.
As far as I am informed, the High Tribunal has ruled that this afternoon's session is only to be used for the presentation of defense documents, because the defense, up to now, has not been able to present these documents, because of translation difficulties.
At this time, I would like to drew the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that we have documents here which were turned in on the 3rd of September. These documents have already been translated. Therefore, this shows to us that the documents are very quickly translated for the prosecution, while the defense has to wait for more than two months for its documents to be translated. I request that in future trials a rule should be made that the documents both for the defense and prosecution should be translated according to the time that they are turned in for translation.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, I have obtained permission of the defense counsel concerned for all of the documents in this book, except the first two. The first two I regard as highly important. We discovered them only two days ago, or three days ago, perhaps, and it shows that regular cooperation was ordered among the office chiefs, something that has been denied by all of the defendants.
THE PRESIDENT: The objections of defense counsel to these documents will be overruled and they will be admitted as proper rebuttal.
MR. ROBBINS: The next three documents are affidavits from the three defense witnesses, the Jehovah's Witnesses, who testified here, and Dr. Bergold has agreed that we may put them in. They were taken in the presence of the defense counsel. They are offered simply to point out that the deaths at Wewelsberg occurred during the course of the construction program at that concentration camp. They are 4977, which will be Exhibit 729, NO-4968, which will be Exhibit 730, and 4969, which will be Exhibit 731.
The last of the documents are offered simply to show that the confiscation of the Max Lobkowitz property was finally carried out. They are 4966, which will be Exhibit 732, 4942, which will be Exhibit 733, 4944, Exhibit 734, and 4943, which will be Exhibit 735.
I have a note from the Secretary General that two of our documents which were numbered for reference, the exhibit on those has been lost, so I will withdraw them, They are Exhibit 446A, Document NO-552, and Exhibit 492, Document NO-2186.
There are two other documents which were simply numbered for reference and marked for identification, which I failed to formally offer in evidence. They are 337, Exhibit 337, in Document Book XXII, NO-491, and Exhibit No. 379, Document No. NI-363, in Book XIII, which I should like to offer into evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: What about the first two documents in Document Book XIII? Were they given a number?
MR. ROBBINS: They are 727 and 728, Your Honor.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH (Attorney for the Defendants Frank and Hans Loerner): Your Honor, if the Tribunal please, I would now like to begin with my presentation of my document books for the defense.
THE PRESIDENT: Are they just these two documents?
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: This is Document Book No. II and Document Book No. III for Frank.
THE PRESIDENT: II for Loerner?
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Yes, No. II for Loerner.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we have them.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: I have it once more. I brought it along.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: II for Hans Loerner and II and III for Frank?
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: That is quite right, Your Honor.
In Document Book II for Frank, we have Document No. 17, which I want to offer as Exhibit No. 16. This is an affidavit by Kurt Becher, which I have mentioned before. This affidavit shows that the Defendant Frank, when the negotiations took place with the non-aryan family of Oppenheim, observed all normal commerical rules and that he did not exert the pressure desired by Himmler.
The next document, No. 18, I shall not offer. This is an affidavit by Morgen and he has been heard here as a witness, and thus the whole matter has been settled.
Documents Nos. 19 to 23, these are Exhibits 17 to 21. Document No. 19 will receive the Exhibit No. 17, etc. These document deal with the organizational chart of the WVHA which the Prosecution presented as Document 4123. These affidavits show that this organizational chart of the Prosecution is not correct with regard to several details concerning Department I of which Frank was in charge. The last document is No. 24 which will become exhibit No. 22. This is a chart about the movement of funds in the Waffen-SS. This document is not contained in the document books, as I have been told, but I believe that the General Secretary can furnish us a copy. The movement of funds in the Waffen-SS is the subject of this document, and it becomes clearly evident from this document what was done with the income of the Waffen-SS or the income which the concentration camps had and in what way the funds for the expenses were requested and in what way they were turned over. Then we have an explanation here with regard to statements that Frank and Hans Loerner have given us on the witness stand, and I shall go into more detail in my final speech.
In Document Book III for the Defendant Frank I want to submit Document No. 25 which will become Exhibit No. 23. This is an affidavit by Ernst Ruff. This person, Ernst Ruff, had been an inmate in a concentration camp for many years. Towards the end of the war he worked at Bayrischzell in the Berghaus of the SS in a labor detachment. At this time an order had been issued to the effect that the inmates of the concentration camp Dachau who worked in the labor detachments were to go to Tyrol on foot so that they would not meet the American troops. The SS officers who were responsible for these inmates realized that this forced march with the inadequate food supplies probably would cause the death of a large number of inmates.