DR. RATZ: Before I begin with my presentation of documents, I would like to submit a number of corrections of the English transcript of the 2nd to 8th of July, 1947, concerning the examination of Defendant Pook. There are 31 mistakes in the translation from German to English.
From Document Book II, I should like to submit Document Hermann Pook No. 14, which will be Exhibit 13, and essay from the periodical of German Law from 1936, concerning the protective custody and its legal basis by Tessmer. He was a ministerial counselor in the Gestapo Office in Berlin.
Exhibit No 14, will be Document No. 15, an affidavit by Herber Klischwski, of 26 June 1946. This affidavit, as the following ones contained in my document book, was submitted in the IMT Trial and they were described as SS affidavits.
The next document, Pook No. 16, I offer as Exhibit No.15, an affidavit by Anton Fabian. He was once an inmate in Oranienburg and Sarhsenhausen camps. It is SS Affidavit No 23 in the IMT. Exhibit No. 16 is an affidavit by Otto Weber of 9 July 1946, an SS Affidavit, and it was No. 14 before the IMT. Otto Weber was a Catholic clergyman and since 1942 he was a member of the Guard Battalion of Gusen near Mauthausen.
As Exhibit No. 17, I submit Document Pook No. 18. This is an affidavit by Heinrich Koenig of 6 July, 1946, SS Affidavit No. 15 of the IMT. Koenig was a member of the staff of the commandant of Sachsenhausen Camp from 1940 to 1945.
I then submit an affidavit by Vinzenz Klose of 9 July 1946, SS affidavit No. 21 of the IMT. It is Document Pook No. 19, and I offer it as Exhibit 18. Klose was at first in Gross Rosen with the SS Guard Unit and from January 1942 until January 1945, he was with the SS Central Administration of Auschwitz Concentration Camp. He was the camp administrator of the timber and coal stores.
Exhibit Number 19 is an affidavit by Alfred Tunger of July 1946, Document Book Number 20. I should like to remark here that the English translation of Document Book II is not quite complete yet. Unfortunately a few pages are still missing. A few affidavits and documents have not been translated yet and are not contained in the document book. Because the documents concerned had been translated in the IMT trial, these translations, or at least the still missing pages, I shall submit at the very earliest opportunity. In Tunger's affidavit on page 99 there are one or two pages missing.
Exhibit Number 20 will be an affidavit by Glenner of 26 June 1946. This is Pook Document Number 21, and it is SS Affidavit Number 19 of the IMT. Glenner, a former professional soldier, was employed in the Sachsenhausen-Oranienburg camp. All these affidavits concern the subject of conditions in concentration camps generally.
I now beg to submit a group of affidavits concerning the system of secrecy. Exhibit Number 21 is an affidavit by Richard Schulze of 9 July 1946. It is Document Number 22 and is SS-Affidavit Number 117 of the IMT. Schulze was from October 1942 until December 1944 Hitler's personal adjutant. Exhibit Number 22 is an affidavit of Dr. Hermann Fuerer. It is Document Number 23 and was SS Affidavit Number 63. This, again, I shall have to submit later in the English translation. Fuerer between March 1943 and the end of the war was an officer on Himmler's staff.
Exhibit Number 23 is the affidavit by Leo Flirl. It is Hermann Pook Document Number 24 and SS affidavit Number 22. Flirl since September 1944 was with the commandant's administration in Dachau. Exhibit Number 24 is an affidavit by Gerlach of 7 June 1946. It is Hermann Pook Document Number 25 and SS Affidavit Number 27 before the IMT. Exhibit Number 25 Hoess's testimony before the IMT, given on 15 July 1946. It is Hermann Pook Document Number 26. The translation of this part of the record is not contained in the document book. I should now like to hand the translation to the Court.
As Exhibit Number 26 I offer the testimony by Eberhard von Thadden, which is Document Pook Number 27. This is the official copy concerning the testimony before the commission appointed by the IMT. Thadden was a diplomat in the Foreign Ministry; and since 1943 he worked on the question of intervention by foreign diplomats in Jewish questions. Exhibit Number 27 is Document Number 28 and SS Affidavit Number 70. This is an affidavit given on 28 July 1946 by Erich Kamp and Gerhard Franz. The translation of this affidavit I shall have to submit later on. This affidavit by Kamp and Franz contains extracts from about three thousand affidavits given by former SS members of internment camp Number 23 in Kornwestheim in the summer of last year.
Exhibit 28 is Hermann Pook Document Number 29. These are two quotations which I shall make use of again in my final plea. Concerning the subject of the position of physicians and dentists in the Allgemeine SS, I submit an affidavit by Prof. Heinrich Teidke of 28 July 1946. This is Hermann Pook Document Number 30; and I offer it as Exhibit Number 29.
Finally, about the subject of the Mounted SS, I have testimony again given before the commission of the IMT with the official transcript of 10 June 1946, testimony of the witness Wilhelm Ruediger of Wolkowski. It is Document Number 31 and Exhibit Number 30. This concludes the presentation of Document Book II.
I shall now come to documents contained in Document Book III. Exhibit 31 is an affidavit by Frau Kirchheim. This is Pook Document Number 32. This, as well as the following documents, are affidavits concerned with the defendant's personal character. Frau Kirchheim is the wife of a half-Jew, and she testifies among other things that the defendant Pook did not hesitate as late as 1942 when he was in the street wearing his SS uniform to talk for half an hour with her husband near his own office. A second document is Exhibit Number 32, Document Number 33, an affidavit by Margarete Wege of 3rd April 1947. This concerns the fact that Pook did not discriminate among his patients; he accepted Jews and half-Jews as much as he did everybody else. It states also that the Pook family kept up private and friendly relations with the Kirchheim family.
As Exhibit Number 33 I offer Hermann Pook Number 34, an affidavit by Anna Heinrich, who also testifies that Dr. Pook treated Jews and half-Jews in his practice. She also testifies that she thinks it quite impossible for Pook to be capable of an evil act; he was far too softhearted and was an extremely kind man such as few exist. As Exhibit Number 34 I submit an affidavit by Hildegard Pfeuffer, who also testifies that Pook did not discriminate among his patients. He did not worry whether the man was Christian, Jew, or a half-Jew. Dr. Pook worked always until late at night and did not have the time to do anything politically.
Exhibit 35 is an affidavit by Max Rittner. It is Hermann Pook Document Number 36. He testifies that Pook was an honorable man, above reproach, incapable of immoral or criminal acts. Pook knew that Rittner had been a member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany but nevertheless he kept up friendly relations with Rittner, which he would not have done had he been a fanatic National Socialist. Rittner also testifies that Dr. Pook in October 1940 was drafted into the Waffen SS Division Germania as a recruit.
The next exhibit is 36, an affidavit from England, given by Georg Lattemann, a man who is a prisoner in England and who for thirteen years was a dental technician with Pook. He also testifies that Pook did not treat his patients from the political viewpoint but in a strictly professional sense only. Every patient was received and accepted.
The following documents deal with the question of the dental gold or the processing of the gold when the corpses reached the crematorium in Germany. Exhibit Number 37 is Pook Document Number 38. It is a letter from the cemetery office of Leipzig of 19 May 1947. It says there, and I shall quote one sentence: "Corpses about to be cremated should be free of all metal substances, such as rings or other objects of ornament, dentures or part of dentures of precious metal as can be easily removed from the body."
Exhibit Number 38 is Hermann Pook Document Number 39, a letter from the crematorium at Wilmersdorf of 14 May 1947. It says there that it was not customary but if relatives wanted it done a dentist could remove the dental gold in the case of corpses which were about to be cremated. Exhibit Number 39 is Hermann Pook Document Number 40, a letter from the Municipal Burial Office of Dresden of 16 May 1947. This is a form which must be filled in when a corpse is being brought in to be cremated; and in the first sentence it says this.
MISS JOHNSON: Your Honor, I object to the admission of Hermann Pook Number 40 offered as Exhibit 39. It is an uncertified letter which has been sent to the defense counsel, apparently in reply to an inquiry by him. It is to be found on Page 187 of Document Book III.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean there is nothing to show that it is authentic?
MISS JOHNSON: That's right. It is certified as a literal copy of a letter which he has received; but it is not in the form of a certified statement from the writer.
THE PRESIDENT: It isn't even a signed copy; the signature doesn't appear, does it?
MISS JOHNSON: Apparently what the writer has done is write the letter and then he has included a form; and it looks as if the letter has been signed by one Kanablok. In other words, it is merely a letter to the defense counsel. That's all that this is.
THE PRESIDENT: This same form has been admitted in other documents submitted by Dr. Ratz. There's nothing new in it. I think we'll admit it, as we admit everything, for what it is worth.
DR. RATZ: I shall merely quote from the form the first sentence. "The body to be delivered to the Dresden crematorium should be free of any such metal objects which should not be destroyed in the process of cremation and which are removable by ordinary means." That statement refers to metal objects of every kind, particularly to precious metals, gold teeth, dentures, and the like. I shall refer back to this form when I discuss another document.
Exhibit Number 40 is Hermann Pook Document Number 41, an affidavit given by Dr. Genzken of 23 July 1947. It says that a dentist never deputized for a doctor when he was absent; that therefore a doctor was always represented by another doctor who was next to him in rank; also that a dentist could never give an order to a doctor even if and when the dentist was in a higher agency than the doctor in question.
I shall now submit the documents contained in Supplement I of my document book. Exhibit 41 is Hermann Pook Document Number 42, an affidavit by Colonel of the Police Emanuel Stillfried of Vienna, of 19 July 1947, who as a former inmate confirms the fact that in Dachau concentration camp during the summer months of 1943 the dental treatment given to inmates was relatively good and done with all necessary care. Teeth were extracted in cases of abscess and the inmates were always given a local anesthetic first.
Exhibit Number 42 is Hermann Pook Document 42, which is an affidavit given by Roger, who is a clergyman. He testifies that when a corpse was delivered, the corpse, that is, of a captain in the Luftwaffe, his widow was given a form by the crematorium, and she had to sign this document to the effect that she did not want the gold which could be found on the body. Frau Behrmann understood by this that the dental gold was concerned because the rings and so on, of course, had been removed first.
The affiant goes on to say that proved in his opinion that not only of civilians but also members of the Wehrmacht, even officers, the removal of the dental gold before the cremation of the body was in accord with a general order given to the crematorium in Dresden. The situation probably was that the affiant was thinking of the form which I have submitted before.
Then there is Supplement II to Document Book III. This is an affidavit by Dr. Johannsen, and it is Exhibit Number 43, Hermann Pook Document Number 44. This affidavit, as well as the following, deals with the document submitted by the prosecution in rebuttal, NO-4551, which was Exhibit 724, in which it says that Dr. Pook had been transferred to the medical detachment in the SD Main Office in August 1939. When he was on the witness stand, Dr. Pook denied this and said that this was not true. Dr. Johannsen goes into the details of this. I beg your pardon. It wasn't Dr. Johannsen who talks about this but Dr. Dernietzel. Therefore, the Exhibit Number 43 should be given to another affidavit, the affidavit by Dr. Dernietzel, which is Hermann Pook Document Number 45. Dr. Dernietzel deals with that question, and he comes to the conclusion that the decree mentioned in Document NO-4551 by a mistake or perhaps by a misprint had been wrongly drawn up and that it should have read, "Dr. Pook will be transferred to the Medical Department SS Main Office, Medical Detachment SS Main Office," not SD Main Office.
The affidavit by Dr. Johannsen will be Exhibit 44. It deals with the channels of command in the dental service of the Waffen SS, and at the end it confirms something which I haven't been able to prove otherwise-- that Dr. Pook through the services of Dr. Blaschke was in the autumn of 1944 appointed the dental officer in charge of the Prinz Eugen Corps and that his successor in D/III of the WHA was the then dental officer in charge of the Prinz Eugen Corps, Dr. Wipper. Dr. Johannsen, however, points out that this transfer was not effected because Lolling protested, and he objected to the fact that he was not consulted about the transfer at first.
My final document which I beg to submit is the affidavit by Hans Ehlich. This affidavit was signed only last night. I do not have the translation, but I would be grateful to the Court if I could just read these few sentences verbatim. This is Hans Pook's Document 46 which I offer as Exhibit No. 45. Dr. Hans Ehlich, born on 3 July 1901, in Leipzig says as follows: The affidavit, I might remark, deals also with the rebuttal document referred to before about the transfer of Dr. Pook, and the medical detachment of the SD Main Office. Dr. Ehlich says, and I quote: "From 1 February 1937, until the end of war I was the dental expert, and later on in charge of the Department of Public Health in the SD Main Office, which was later the RSHA Office III. In this position I know from my official work in the SD Main Office that there was never a medical detachment in the SD Main Office. The document which I have refers to NO-4551, Exhibit No. 724, which contains an order of transfer of Dr. Pook to the SD Main Office. I can not comprehend it and it should probably be based on an error. It should be SS Main Office, rather SD Main Office. If, however, it was planned to establish a medical detachment in the SD Main Office, this was never carried out, because the war broke out soon afterwards. I also know that in the arrangements made between the Chief of the SS Medical Office, Dr. Grawitz and the Chief of the Police and SD, to the effect that the medical service for members and units of the Security Police and Security Service of the SD could organize, I never came across the name of Dr. Pook within the scope of my work, but particularly I can testify to the fact that a dentist by that name was never working in the Department of Public Health of the SD." Signed -- Hans Ehlich.
This, Your Honor, is the completion of my presentation.
DR. HEIM: Dr. Heim for the defendant Hohberg. If Your Honor please, I have document book III, and two supplements for document books II and III, Hohberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Heim, do you have another copy of Supplement No. II, Book 3?
DR. HEIM: Yes, Your Honor. Your Honor please, do you have an English copy of Document Book III?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. HEIM: Then I shall begin?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. HEIM: The first document in document book III is Document No. 69, which has been offered as Exhibit No. 42. The next document will be Document No. 70, which will be Exhibit No. 67. This is the second contact of consultation between Pohl and Hohberg on 20 August 1943 at the period of time, in other words, when Dr. Hohberg was already with the Luftwaffe. I would like to draw your particular attention to Paragraph 1 of the agreement by which the independence of Dr. Hohberg becomes clear. The next document will be Document No. 71, and I offer it as Exhibit No. 68. This document proves that it was quite impossible for Hohberg to have known of the incidents between the Reichsbank and those agencies which carried out the seizure of Jewish property. I would like to draw attention to Hohberg's statement on the witness stand that whenever a visitor went to the Board of the Reich he was always accompanied by one of the directors of the Reich Bank. That testimony of Hohberg is born out by this affidavit.
The next document is Hohberg's No. 72, and I offer it as Exhibit No. 69. This is a bit out of date now. This document itself says that at no time Hohberg was administrator of the Apolinaris Company, but I offer the document nevertheless in order to support Hohberg's testimony that the Apolinaris Company for reasons of security had been put under supervision at the suggestion of the Reich Ministry of Finance.
The next document is Hohberg's No. 736, Exhibit No. 70. I offer this document for reasons to show that the reliability of Karoly's testimony is not particularly impressive, which becomes clear from this affidavit that what Karoly said about the May case is untrue. The Court will recall that on the witness stand Karoly claimed that the price paid to May by the SS had been adequate, but this document says the opposite of what Karoly said.
The next document is Hohberg's No. 74, and I offer it as Exhibit No. 71. The same thing becomes clear which the first document shows, which says that unlike what Karoly said, Hohberg never took part in the negotiations of purchases in the May case. The Court will recall that on the witness stand Karoly said Hohberg had himself directed these negotiations.
The next document is Hohberg's No. 75, and which is Exhibit No. 72. This is a document disclosing that the witness Karoly when he was interrogated expressed the intention to incriminate Hohberg; for the rest of this document is subordinate.
Now for the next two documents, Nos. 76 and 77, we are not offering.
I offer document No. 78, which will be Exhibit No. 73. This document is the original which shows when Hohberg was arrested by Captain Barker, the British Captain, this document was removed from him in his flat. This shows that Hohberg testified truthfully when he said that he collected material against the SS in order one day to transfer the DWB Concern officially to the Reich. The document also shows from paragraph 1 and paragraph 3, that the total of three million marks was used in order to increase the DWB capital, and this came purely from the Reich funds. With this help of those funds, the DWB, which up to then was an enterprise of the Party, and as such the SS enterprise became the economic enterprise of the German Reich. From that moment onwards the management could not make financial arrangements without consulting the Reich.
The next document is Hohberg's No. 79, which is in the supplement to Document Book III, and I offer it as Exhibit No. 74. This document speaks about Hohberg certificates, about the remuneration of inmate labor, and it has excerpts of opinion of the officials with a refutation on on the question whether the SS would have made any profit, and if it made why would have been put at the disposal of an SS agency by the Reich, and could have been lent to other agencies for a compensation.
This affidavit comes to a conclusion that in actual practice from a point of view of political taxation and the supply of taxation, not even the Lebensborn would have had anything left at all. The affidavit also said what Dr. Hohberg already must have known as to him, and any other consequence at the time when he made these propositions. For the rest I might point out that this intention was never taken seriously but thrown into the wastepaper basket.
My last document is in Supplemental Book II, and this document NO. 80 which I now offer as Exhibit No. 75. I offer this document for the reason of Hohberg's knowledge about the incidents in Auschwitz, which he tried to pass on to many people that on those occasions, as the document describes, he rendered a risk of arrest by the Gestapo. This concludes the presentation of documents on behalf of the Defendant Hohberg.
DR. GAWLIK: Dr. Gawlik for the defendants Bobermin and Volk. If the Tribunal please, I shall first present documents for the defendant Bobermin, which are in document book I, and the supplementary volume, as well as a single document which has not been translated as yet, as it is a copy of the IMT transcript.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Do you have two document books for Bobermin?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: And one for Volk?
DR. GAWLIK: There are two document books for Volk, and three supplements.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you have for Volk, Dr. Gawlik, one document book?
DR. GAWLIK: Two document books.
THE PRESIDENT: The first one contains Documents one to twentynine?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, quite so.
THE PRESIDENT: Now do you have another book?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, Documents thirty-two to forty.
THE PRESIDENT: We have not got it. For Bobermin, what do you have?
DR. GAWLIK: For Bobermin I have one document book with Documents one through thirteen. And another document book with documents fourteen through twenty-three.
THE PRESIDENT: That is right, we have those. How many documents in your second book for Volk?
DR. GAWLIK: In the second document book there are documents thirty-two through forty. Nine documents altogether, and then there are three isolated documents as supplement, in addition.
THE PRESIDENT: We have not received the second Volk book. The Secretary-General does not have the book, either. That is the second volume of Volk.
DR. GAWLIK: If the Tribunal please, I have not received the English translation of Document Book II, although I have received the supplement. I submitted it to the translation section a long time ago, and I frequently talked to Captain Rice about this, of the Defense Information Center, and he promised me that the document books would be here in time.
I could not do anything else because I am not allowed to contact the translation section myself.
THE PRESIDENT: Well go ahead with what you have, but one of your books is not here.
DR. GAWLIK: I shall start with documents on behalf of Dr. Hans Bobermin. I would like to draw the Court's attention to the fact that as SS Exhibit No. 1, I had already submitted document No. 13. Exhibit Bobermin No. 2, I offer as document Bobermin's No 17. This is an affidavit by Georg Gercks of 15 August 1947, pages 40 to 44 of the English Document Book. Gercke from January 1940 until the end of the war worked with Dr. Bobermin. He testified and said that Dr. Bobermin did not seize the brick works, but they were seized by the Main Administrative Agency, East. Then he makes a statement about the fact that considerable sums of money were invested in the brick works of which he mentioned the sum of forty million marks. He then testified about the fact that no forced labor was used, that the workers and employees were all free workers, and that conditions were the same as those under which German workers were employed. He then testified about the fact that Bobermin's mode of life was in no sense of the word of a typical SS conduct as alleged by the Prosecution on page 43 of the English Document Book. Gercke's affidavit did not form the impression within the long period of time in which he worked with Bobermin, that his conduct of life was typically SS, but that it was not a typical SS conduct; that he conducted himself as a man himself of a private form. He did not follow. Himmler's orders blindly.
Exhibit No. 3 I offer as Bobermin's Document No. 18 in a supplemental volume on page 45 of the English Book. It is an affidavit by Gottfried Buchartz of 9 August 1947. Buchartz was with Dr. Bobermin from October 1940 until the end of the war, in the Eastern German Construction Material Works. He speaks on the subject and says that in the enterprise, or that firm, no inmates or force labor were used, and they were all free workers; that the conditions were the same for the German and Polish workers and employees.
That Dr. Bobermin, Buchartz stated, started a system of Polish Workers travelling expenses and soforth, and he makes also a statement about which the Tribunal may see when he said that Dr. Bobermin did not seize any enterprise; that this was done by the Main Trusteeship Agency East.
He then testifies about the topic of looting. He says on page 47 that these enterprises had not been looted, but particularly nothing was dismantled. Considerable sums of money, on the other hand, were invested, and he says this sum of money was somewhere between ten and twelve million marks.
He then speaks about the Reinhardt Aktion, that these sums, the credit of 1,200,000 zloyts did not come from the Reinhardt Action, and Dr. Bobermin did not know where the money came from.
As Exhibit Bobermin No. 4 I submit Document Bobermin 22 in the supplementary book, an affidavit by Reinhold Stechemesser of 13 August 1947, on Page 61 to 63, the English Document Book. Stechemesser also was an employee in the Eastern German Construction Material Works for many years, as from 1 April 1940. I want to prove by this affidavit that in the plants of that enterprise there were no concentration camp inmates or forced labor used. Stechemesser also confirms the conditions among which workers worked were the same as the rest of Germany. They were subject to the same prohibition concerning type of work, hours of work and extent of work. He testifies then on Page 63 of the English Document Book that Dr. Bobermin did not seize the enterprises and that they were all of them enterprises seized by the Main Trusteeship Agency East. Inasmuch as owners were available they were employed in the enterprises as skilled workers and compensated accordingly. He testifies about the question that these enterprises were not plundered or looted.
Exhibit Bobermin No. 14 in the supplementary volume, on Page 33 through 36. Herta Zibolsky was Bobermin's secretary for a long period of time. She testifies first about the fact that only voluntary workers worked in the Eastern German Construction Material Works, particularly that no forced labor was used. She then speaks about conditions of work and testifies that Dr. Bobermin never worked on any concentration camp matters, that he never entered even a concentration camp, and gives detailed reason why she is in a position to say so. She says that Dr. Bobermin gave an extensive report about any trip made, which she took down, and therefore she would have known if Dr. Bobermin went to a concentration camp. She then testifies to the fact that Dr. Bobermin never seized any Jewish property, and then testifies about the credit in the Reinhardt Action and says that the agency did not know what the term "Action Reinhardt" stood for, and in particular Dr. Bobermin did not. She then testifies about the way the Polish workers were dealt with in the enterprises of the Eastern Construction Material Works, particularly that they were treated entirely satisfactorily, and at the end she says as far as the statement by the Prosecution is concerned that the SS was in, that Dr. Bobermin did not model his conduct or life on SS principles, that he was not a fanatical National Socialist, and gives detailed reasons therefore.
As Bobermin Document No. 6 - I beg your pardon, Exhibit No. 6, I submit Document Bobermin No. 1 in Document Book 1. This is an affidavit by Josef Opperbeck of 20 June, 1947, on Pages 1 to 3 of the English Document Book. Opperbeck testified under Roman I that Dr. Bobermin was a member of the mounted SS, the Reiter-SS. Under Paragraph 2 he says that the enterprises of the Eastern German Construction Material Works were not directed by Dr. Bobermin at that time, and that he did not have the authority to seize. He then testifies to the fact that up to the middle of 1941 Dr. Salpeter was the man who was in charge. I wish to prove by that Dr. Bobermin did not have the power to prevent any measures from being taken. Opperbeck then speaks about the fact that Main Department III-A, Office W had no contact with concentration camps and that particularly in the enterprises of III-A/4, that is to say the Eastern German Construction Material Works, never employed inmates or forced labor.
Exhibit Bobermin No. 7 I submit Document No. 7 in Document Book -
THE PRESIDENT: The sound tape is just about to expire. There is about one minute left, so we will take a recess now while they change the tape.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. GAWLIK: As Exhibit Bobermin No. 7 I would like now to introduce Document Bobermin No. 7. It is on page 18 of Document Book No. 1. This is a first decree concerning the execution of the decree issued by the Fuehrer for the organization of the Eastern territories. As Exhibit Bobermin No. 8. I am introducing Bobermin No. 8. This is a decree of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor concerning the branches and administration of the Eastern territories. Page 20 to 21 of the English Document Book.
With these two documents I want to prove that field was enacted by international law. I shall come back to that in my final plea and make a few more detailed statements.
As Exhibit No. 9 I would like to introduce Document Bobermin No. 9. It is on page 22 and goes on to page 24 of the English document book. This is a publication about the German-Russian friendship and frontier agreement as well as the supplement dated the 30th of December 1939. Some of the building firms were in the Eastern territories. This new frontier had been recognized by Russia. I would like to draw particular attention of this Tribunal to Articles 1 and 2 of this Friendship and Frontier agreement. Article 1 -- where the German Reich government and the government of the USSR admit and set the line which is contained in the map attached thereto and described in a document which is attached and describes the matter. In Article 2 it is stated that both parties agree to the boundaries contained in Article 1, and they consider it final for the interests of both parties, and they will not agree to an interference of a third party in those matters. The agreement was signed for the USSR by Molotoff.
THE PRESIDENT: What has it to do with Bobermin? What has it to do with Bobermin in this indictment?
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, Bobermin is now being charged with having property which was within that territory looted and that, therefore, he committed violations of the Hague Convention. If this territory was annexed legally then the Hague Convention agreements did not apply there as far as the occupational forces were concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't understand. You said if this territory was what? Annexed?
DR. GAWLIK: Annexed, yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I see. All right.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I am trying to prove that it was no longer an occupied territory according to the sense of the Hague Convention, but was part of the Reich territory, also recognized by Russia -- namely, by this agreement concerning the frontier between Germany and Russia.
THE PRESIDENT: That is, Germany and Russia agreed that Germany should have part of Poland?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, indeed, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't notice Poland's signature on this agreement.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, then perhaps let refer to Oppenheimer, who was a very famous international law expect. Oppenheimer's latest book which was printed in 1945 is speaking of the following:-
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, I didn't mean to lead you into your argument at this time. Let us go on with the documents and then you can argue that point later at the proper time.
DR. GAWLIK: All I wanted to say, your Honor, was that in the international law it was not necessary to have an agreement with the annexed country - for the annexation - to be legal. I never did know any exception in which those annexed actually agreed to such an annexation. Therefore, it is not necessary to have the agreement of the annexed country before it can be annexed. Oppenheimer says that the annexed country can protest, but, speaking from an international law point of view, this does not make any difference.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
DR. GAWLIK: Then I would like to introduce as Exhibit No. 10, Document Bobermin No. 10. Document Bobermin No. 10, which is the decree for the introduction of the Four-Year-Plan in the Eastern territories, on page 45; and as Exhibit No. 11, a decree concerning the handling of property belonging to citizens of the former Polish state, which can be found on pages 26 to 29.
With these two documents I wish to prove that Dr. Bobermin, in Office W-2 and the WVHA, generally speaking, had no right whatever to carry out any seizures. I would like to draw the Tribunal's attention to paragraph 12 of document Bobermin No. 11. In this paragraph it is stated there who was responsible for the seizures, namely the manager of the Four-Year-Plan, the Main Trusteeship Department East.
As Exhibit No. 12 I would like to introduce Bobermin Document No. 19, in the supplement. The other documents refer to the Golloschau question.
Document No. 19 is an affidavit by Richard Goebel dated 30 August 1947. It is on pages 50 to 56 of the supplement. Goebel was the works manager of the Portland Cement and Aktiengesellschaft, namely, Golloschau, the only plant where, since 1933, concentration camp inmates were used.