Q. Well, what pen did you use to enter the address on the card in January 1948?
A. Well, either I had another fountain pen which was broken or just an ordinary pen--I don't know.
Q. Well, that was comparatively recently and we have discussed it a great deal, so, therefore, you must have the incident very vividly in your memory now. Which pen did you use when you wrote in the address opposete the word "telephone"?
A. Well, I cannot say that. There were two pens there. I don't know which one I used that day.
Q. Well, it was only Dr. Maennel's pen that has the violet ink, is that right, his fountain pen?
A. We still have the ink. I have never bought any new ink. That must be a coincidence or something. I don't know that the same ink was used again now.
Q. Well, the ink which you use ordinarily is black and blue? That is right, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. Dr. Maennel's pen had violet ink?
A. Yes, but now I use the ink from that bottle to write with. This is fountain pen ink and was kept for fountain pens because it is very hard to get ink in Berlin now and therefore we are now using this ink as well every day.
Q. This violet ink?
A. Yes.
Q. And is this the same bottle you used back in 1942?
A. Yes, it must be that bottle then which was already used at that time and which was used to fill the fountain pen at that time. It could not be different.
Q. So then the ink which you used in 1942 still exists, that is, that ink bottle?
A. Yes, we still use it to write with.
Q. And do you use it now generally in all your writings, this violet ink?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you making your entries now in violet ink?
A. Yes.
Q. And are you using Dr. Maennel's pen or your own pen?
A. No, the pens which are lying on the desk in the doctor's office.
Q. How many pens do you have lying around in the doctor's office?
A. Two.
Q. Well, how is it that all these entries are written with a pen that has a broad point, but only this one of February 7 is written with a fine point? Now, you have given your explanation that this is due to the fact that on February 7, 1942 you used Dr. Maennel's pen?
A. Yes.
Q. Now how does it happen that in January 1948, six years later, you happened to pick up the same pen which was used on 7 February 1942, and that is the only time, as far as this card is concerned, that you used this thin, this fine pointed pen; is that just a coincidence?
A. Well, surely I wrote that with the thin pen now. Now, that is the ordinary pen, I used that to enter that address with.
Q. But it happens to be exactly the same kind of a pen point that you used six years before?
A. That is not the same pen.
Q. Well, it is the same result, isn't it-- it gives the same result?
A. I don't know.
Q. Well, just look at it and tell us if in your opinion the handwriting which appears in the address and the handwriting which appears in the February 7 entry don't agree, so far as fineness of writing is concerned?
A. The other one was written with pencil first. Most of then have first been written with pencil and therefore the writing looks broader.
Q. You didn't answer my question. I am asking you whether the hand writing in the telephone address and the handwriting in the February 7 entry are not similar so far as fineness of writing is concerned?
A. Yes, there is a similarity.
Q. Yes. Now, you say it is merely a coincidence that six years later you happened to use the same kind of a pen point?
A. That must be a coincidence then.
Q. Because you tell us that you did not use Dr. Maennel's pen when you wrote the address?
A. I said I have a fountain pen now and one ordinary pen which is very thin -- very fine, and I used that now because the fountain pen is not working properly. I mostly use this thin pen to write with, now.
Q. So it is merely a coincidence that the handwriting in the address bear a similarity to the handwriting in the February 7 entry so far as fineness of writing is concerned in spite of the fact that every other entry on the card is written with a heavy pen?
A. Yes, that is a mere coincidence.
Q. Very well, all right. You usually gave one line to an item -usually, that is correct, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. But occasionally you would put two items on a line, wouldn't you?
A. Yes, but no treatment; that is, no work that Dr. Maennel did.
Q. You would never put on the same line two treatments?
A. No. That hardly happened.
Q. Tell us what those last two items are on the last line-- those two entries, each one preceded with an angle, what are those?
A. Those were two fillings.
Q. So they were two jobs, weren't they?
A. Yes, but the same filling. There were two teeth, but the same filling was put into the two teeth.
Q. Oh, but they were two different teeth?
A. Yes.
Q. Why didn't you enter the polishing item of February 7 on the line above, since it did not require any charge?
A. That was done on another day. That was done at a different day and the dates are always written below each other.
Q. Well, the day isn't so important, especially since you didn't care whether they came back for the polishing or not and you didn't charge for it. If you were so concerned about conserving space on that card, why didn't you enter that polishing item against the item of the actual work of filling the tooth?
A. One does not do that. It never happened.
Q. Well, then tell us if you were not concerned about saving time, why you didn't draw the totalling line underneath the February 7 item instead of above it, especially in view of the fact that April 22 naturally follows February 7?
A. One doesn't think anything of it, one just does it. That is the usual practice, and one does not do it in a commercial manner like a proper bookkeeper. Actually, the treatment had been concluded.
Q. But it was still an item of the treatment and then when you came to total up, why didn't that line come under February 7 rather than above?
A. Well, I did not notice this particularly. It usually is added up that way, or I did it that way.
Q. Would you say that it would be more reasonable to draw the line under the February 7 entry?
A. Yes. In my opinion it does not make any difference where this addition line is made.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Any other questions.
DR. KRAUSE: I have no questions, only a request. Your Honor, I would like to ask the witness to give me a short specimen of her handwriting. May I ask that she be given some paper?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, she has already written two items here. If you desire that she write something, do it on that card.
DR. KRAUSE: Please write, "Sven Hedinplatz 8".
THE WITNESS: I have no pencil.
DR. KRAUSE: Oh, you have no pencil. Do you have your fountain pen with you? "Sven Hedinplats 8" and below it "7 February 1942 - polished." Your Honor, may I now ask for the card and the specimen of handwriting in order to be able to get an expert opinion on that.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, there is just one more question. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, in every item on that card the tooth which is to be treated is indicated except the item which refers to the polishing. Do you want to tell us why you didn't indicate which tooth was involved in the polishing process?
A. Yes. I already said yesterday that we know which tooth is to be polished. The doctor will only polish that tooth which he filled himself if the patient does not ask to have another tooth polished because it has a sharp edge. Doctor Maennel will only polish that tooth that has been treated, otherwise.
Q. Well, do you make this entry before or after the work is done?
A. Sometimes while the patient is being treated or else immediately afterwards.
Q. Well, it is never made before the work is done?
A. No, it is never made before.
Q. So, therefore, the entry is not put on the card to acquaint the doctor with the particular work that is to be done because he knows?
A. Yes.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
Q These entries are put on the card for two reasons: One, to indicate the price and, the other, so that you will have a record of the precise work done.
Q So that glancing at that card now you couldn't tell whether the polishing was done to the tooth which had been treated several days before or to some other tooth which happened to have A sharp edge, could you? filled by Dr. Maennel, be treated, then, of course, I write down that tooth. I mark it on the card and, then, if A sharp edge is polished off and the patient has nothing else to be done to him, then we charge him. and deduction. It would have been much simpler to have indicated on the card as you did on every other item just which tooth had been polished, wouldn't it?
A Yes, here it would be the left upper, No. 7, which Dr. Maennel had filled.
Q Well, you just have to assume that. It isn't on the card. had been treated, it would be entered and the polishing is entered so that we know the treatment has been concluded.
Q Well, that's only A matter of conclusion. That doesn't appear on the card. on your part. It does not appear on the card. it was that tooth that was polished. I said that Dr. Maennel polished teeth which he filled.
Q Is that the way you always abbreviate "polishing" in German, "p-o-l"?
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. All right.
DR. KRAUSE: Thank you.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the prosecution respectfully moves that the witness may be cited for contempt of court for perjury. I do not base this motion on the entirely incredible stories which the witness has told about the pen holders and the sixyear old ink pot. However, I base this motion on the contents of the affidavit and of her own testimony. she knew that at the time when she signed the affidavit it would be used here before this Tribunal -- that she knew Dr. Walter Haensch. The Tribunal certainly will recall that her testimony has clearly shown that she did not know him; that she did not know his Christian name which appears in the affidavit. the chart were made by her. She has testified to this effect before the Tribunal yesterday. She has admitted in cross-examination that at least one of the entries was not made by her own hand and that another one was admittedly made in January 1948. entries in violet ink, which are a falsification of the document, were made by the witness. On the contrary, I do think it is perfectly clear to the Tribunal from the testimony of the expert witness that these two entries were made by somebody else than the witness. However, the witness has testified here in direct examination, and I quote:
"Question of Counsel for Defense: If I understand you correctly then, you testified on oath that whatever it says on this card corresponds to the fact that it is correct.
"The witness: Yes."
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
guilty of contempt of court and the prosecution respectfully moves that the Tribunal may decide so.
DR. KRAUSE: Your Honors, I object to the motion by the prosecution. In my opinion, the perjury with which the witness is charged has not yet been proved at all.
THE PRESIDENT: Counselor, I don't think it is necessary to make any argumentation in this matter.
DR. Koessl, are you ready to proceed?
DR. KOESSL (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT SCHUBERT): Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion made by the prosecution is refused. The witness will be excused and we will proceed with the presentation of summation arguments.
(The witness was excused.)
DR. KOESSL: May it please the Court. The opening speech of the Prosecution contains the following sentences to show the obviousness of and give juridical proof for a guilt of the defendants:
"Everyone of the defendants was in a responsible position or assigned as a commander of an extermination unit. By virtue of his position he had the authority to give orders for executions."
"As military commanders these men were bound to laws which are certainly familiar to all who have worn the military uniform. Laws which impose the duty to the commander, as far as it is in his power, to prevent the commission of crimes on the part of those persons who are subordinated to his command."
"They ware lawfully, if not by their conscience, under the obligation to refrain from such activities."
"It is a legal and moral duty to prevent, restrict and condemn the slaughter of innocent persons, a duty which was evidently violated by all defendants." the Einsatzgruppe D. He himself, as well as Ohlendorf, testifying as Court No. II, Case No. IX.
witnesses in their own defense, have described in detail the former's power of authority and there were no contradictions. I refer to the passages on page 583 in the German records, (unfortunately, I never found out the English page) page 4657 ff. German, page 4572 ff., English, pages 4819/20 German and 4729 of the English records. Schubert had come to Russia without that his function had been previously determined. This was customary for the ranks of commanders only and Ohlendorf used him as an Adjutant and office chief at the staff of the Einsatzgruppe. Ohlendorf's statement and Schubert's own testimony give a picture which makes Schubert, as an Adjutant, appear not even responsible to that extent which is customary for an Adjutant all over the world. Ohlendorf has stated literally that he himself did not use an Adjutant, page 583 German records, and that Schubert's assignment as Chief of the office was the most important thing for him. If we hear from Herr Ohlendorf that Schubert could neither exercise a power of command nor was he permitted to give orders, that he had no authority to make decisions in personnel - or technical matters and had no supervisory obligations and not even a general authority to sign, this is fully coinciding with Schubert's description in his testimony (page 4657 ff. of the German records, page 4572 of the English records) and also corresponds with the conditions which evidently existed in the immediate surroundings of such a strong personality as Ohlendorf. Thus, Schubert did not hold a position which would have given him any power of authority let alone a power to decide over life and death. Neither was his position of such a nature to prevent any crimes. This leads me to the incident which the Prosecution has stressed as the strongest proof for its theory of Schubert's penal responsibility, namely: sion of the execution in Sinferopol in December 1941. It has been ascertained that this execution was planned and fixed as to the details of its implementation without that the defendant Schubert was in any way involved in it (page 585 of the German record) (German record, page Court No. II, Case No. IX.
3154, English record, page 3103, German, page 3181, English, page 3130). Once again I shall give a description of the actual role Schubert played in the course of the execution: On a December day in 1941 these shootings were carried out near Sinferopol. The executions have been going on since the forenoon of that day. Ohlendorf himself has seen to it that they are carried out in accordance with his special directives while repeatedly inspecting the course of the action. (page 742 of the German records, German 4706, English 4620 and German 3180, English 3129).
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Koessl, it isn't necessary to read those. Those appear in the transcript.
DR. KOESSL: The passages should be entered in the record without my having to read them.
THE PRESIDENT: They will appear in the record. The reporters are so instructed to leave everything as it appears in the written manuscript which is before the Tribunal.
DR. KOESSL: Thank you. latter could then report to him whether his directives would be complied with (page 585 German records). Now what kind of a mission did Schubert have? The Prosecution asserts that Schubert had acted as a deputy of Ohlendorf.
In order to examine the legal aspects of Schubert's acting for Ohlendorf it is necessary to determine the purpose Ohlendorf pursued with his own personal and repeated inspections. Ohlendorf had given special directives for the implementation of executions which were announced in writing (page 4674 of the German record, page 4588 of the English). On the day when the executions took place it was his intention to see to it, by personal inspection, that the executions were carried out in accordance with these directives in order to remedy or correct, through immediate intervention at the place and time in question, any deficiencies or deviations that might occur. Schubert had Court No. II, Case No. IX.
no such authority neither was it conferred upon him. Schubert was in no position to remedy any arising deficiencies. orders to any officer carrying out the execution. Schubert "could not interfere" (page 586 German record,) "he had no authority to give orders" (same record). He would have had to report to Ohlendorf in case he had noticed deficiencies (page 586 German record).
This express limitation of Schubert's mission is a decisive indication for the legal judgment of whether his inspection was performed as Ohlendorf's deputy or not. For Ohlendorf decided about the kind and extent of Schubert's task when the latter was assigned. he was entrusted with: From the point of penal law it would be of importance if Schubert would have subjectively comprehended and carried out his mission to a greater extent than it was given to him by Ohlendorf. However, this is not the case either. In his testimony, Schubert has clearly described the particulars of his own interpretation in regard to his mission. (Page 4672 of the German record, page 4587 of the English record). he was "some kind of a deputy." The passage quoted by the Prosecution on page 5 of its closing brief from the English record page 4671 says exactly the opposite of what the Prosecution asserts.
In noticing deviations from Ohlendorf's directives Schubert would not have been able to interfere and give instructions; the utmost possible for him to do, according to his own view, was that, in an emergency case, he could have called the attention of the competent officer to a violation of Ohlendorf's directives (page 586 of the German record) (page 4823 of the German, page 4732 of the English, page 4673 of the German, page 4587 of the English records). However, there cannot be any doubt that this authority, provided for an emergency case, was not specifically based on the mission he received, on the contrary, Court No. II, Case No. IX.
everyone in general has a right to this authority who realizes that existing regulations are violated, and considers it necessary to call attention to this fact because of the existence of an emergency case. The authority was no longer within the scope of the mission given to Schubert, it rather belongs to the general rights of every soldier and officer. closing brief asserts incorrectly on pages 7 and 10, but only contains the possibility to draw the attention of the competent officer to violations of Ohlendorf's directives. did not refer at all to such an emergency case, since his interference would not have been necessary in this case at all. (page 4707 of the German record, page 4622 of the English record). Fundamentally his mission, according to his own view, was confined to an inspection the result of which he had to report to his chief. tion for which Ohlendorf himself was competent, constitutes from the legal point of view the decisive limitation of the mission given to Schubert.
Here I must once more thoroughly discuss SCHUBERT's phraseology concerning his assignment in his affidavit of 24.2.47, Prosecution Exh. 28, Doc. Book 1 Eng. p. 108, German p. 141), which has already been mentioned several times during his interrogation in direct and in cross examination.
There SCHUBERT says literally under fig. a) that he had to see to it that the shooting area was located well outside of town, so that there would be no witnesses of the shooting living in the vicinity. According to the actual conditions this phraseology must appear sheer nonsense. Let our memories take us back to the time: the place of execution has been fixed for days, the necessary preparations have been made, executions are taking place regularly, and Herr OHLENDORF Court No. II, Case No. IX.
has already visited the location that same morning. Probably neither Herr OHLENDORF nor SCHUBERT can have seriously thought that SCHUBERT was in any way supposed to exercise any supervision so that in the meantime while OHLENDORF was absent the place of execution would not somehow be changed and the shootings perhaps be carried out in an entirely different place, possibly in a place which was not far from town and therefore could be seen by unwelcome witnesses.
This assumption, by which alone fig. a) with the expression "see to it" ("Beaufsichtigen) might have some meaning, is nevertheless probably so impossible that it must be completely rejected in the case of a proceeding so complicated with respect to organization as the above-mentioned executions. However, the wording of fig. a) must thereby also be denied any meaning. To be sure, this fig. a) acquires a meaning if we take into consideration what SCHUBERT himself reports about how this phraseology came to be used. I refer to the transcript, German p. 4681, Eng. p. 4594. SCHUBERT says there that he discussed the matter for a fairly long time with Mr. WARTENBERG, with whom this phraseology originated, and pointed out to him that he possibly used this word "supervise" ("beaufsichtigen") incorrectly by deriving it from an English word, and that it rightly ought to be "observe" ("besichtigen").
If we only consider fig. a) in this version with the word "observe" it takes on a thoroughly sensible meaning. Without entering into a lengthy analysis now of the phraseology, corrections and uncorrected mistakes in various places in the affidavit I should at least like to point out here that SCHUBERT's statement not only appears credible in itself but also logical and natural. I am convinced that SCHUBERT, who after all is an educated and intelligent man, would never of his own accord have used such phraseology as in fig. a). And in the last analysis our search for evidence has brought us one more proof for precisely this point, which is better and clearer than any other proof one could think of. We recall that this German word "beaufsichtigen", Court No. II, Case No. IX.
which Mr. WARTENBERG wanted to use and actually did use, was already translated by the English translator of the affidavit as "to see", although literally it ought to have been translated as "supervise". An impartial philologist of the original text would have been obvious nonsense and has translated it with the correct meaning. Concerning this I refer to the transcript, German p. 4692, Eng. p. 4606-07.
Figs. b) and c) contain the same word "beaufsichtigen" as fig. a). In connection with the tasks described there this mode of expression makes some sense in itself; however, we must consider its meaning once more later on. tion with the legal structure and effect of the order given by OHLENDORF: 1.) SCHUBERT received and carried out the order with the limitation which OHLENDORF attached to the order. 2.) Accordingly, the crux of the order was merely to inform OHLENDORF whether or not the execution was also carried out according to his instructions during his absence. 3.) Basically SCHUBERT had no occasion at all to interfere. He had no executive power whatsoever.
Therefore, OHLENDORF's order to SCHUBERT to observe the executions in Sinferopol in December 194 cannot be legally regarded as tantamount to acting as OHLENDORF's deputy.
Now what did SCHUBERT actually do? And what is the criminal nature of his act from the legal point of view that is said to connect with the execution of human beings? where it maintains that there were no other officers present when the transportation took place. As a matter of fact, two officers were present, who had Schubert's rank. sees them being loaded aboard and shipped off. Then he drives to the place of execution, sees the rerouting of traffic, the roads blocked Court No. II, Case No. IX.
off, persons being unloaded, valuables handed over, and the shooting. Finally, he drives back once more along the way to the gypsy quarter and there again sees them being loaded aboard and carried off, and then returns to his office. That is what he did. SCHUBERT did not in any way affect persons who participated in the progress of the execution, whether ordinary soldiers or officers. There is no connection whatsoever of cause and effect between SCHUBERT'S inspection and the execution. The statements of OHLENDORF, BRAUNE and SCHUBERT himself are in complete agreement on this point.
SCHUBERT's statements in his affidavit of 24.2.47, Prosecution Exh. 28, Doc. Book 1, Eng. p. 108, German p. 141, and his statements on this point as a witness in his own defense. The statements concerning this take up the largest amount of space in the evidence submitted during the entire trial, and besides myself, both the prosecuting attorneys and the presiding judge themselves have repeatedly helped through appropriate questions to clear up conditions which at first glance appear highly confused. If we sift out the results of this thorough examination of all the inconsistencies between the affidavit and the actual situation, (transcript, German p. 4705 et seq., Eng. 4620 et seq.) we find that SCHUBERT's actions kept within the bounds of what was proper for his limited assignment. He briefly observed the various phases of the execution at the various places, directed his attention to the points concerning which OHLENDORF had given him special instructions, and drove back to headquarters without having anywhere or at any time ordered anything to be done during the course of the action, or having observed anything unusual. Even his report to OHLENDORF on the inspection was so unimportant that OHLENDORF and SCHUBERT do not even remember it any longer. glance creates the impression that SCHUBERT had interfered during the course of the execution -- I am thinking of fig. 4, which in several places contains the phrase "I saw to it that" -- is to a considerable Court No. II, Case No. IX.
extent to be attributed to the fact that the phrase did not originate with SCHUBERT himself. Likewise, the expression "supervise" ("ueberwachen") is used in such a way that it can be clearly seen that the interrogator was trying to represent SCHUBERT'S assignment in an individual case in such a light as would appear to justify the conclusion that SCHUBERT'S position was connected with executive powers and supervisory duties, so that finally an indictment could be brought against the man who was already bound hard and fast by an affidavit. Even the laws of logic are forgotten in this fanatical zeal. When, for example, it says in fig. 5): "This phase was carefully supervised (uebarwacht) by me so that all the valuables would be turned over to Einsatzgruppe D ....... "then one only has to ask one's self the question: How could SCHUBERT supervise the collection carefully and how could he observe the collection of all the valuables if he himself was only a few minutes at the place where the collection went on throughout the entire day? represent the preparation of the outgoing mail as a supervisory activity.
Neither during his interrogation by Mr. WARTENBERG nor in the courtroom did SCHUBERT report any occurrence which permits the conclusion that he displayed any activity during the execution at Sinferopol which could be described with the words: "Superintendence" (beaufsichtigen), "supervision" (ueberwachen) or "seeing to it" (dafuer sorgen). Mr. WARTENBERG has attempted to make up for this lack of activity by the frequent, even strikingly frequent, use of the verbs "superintend", "supervise", and "see to it" in the affidavit. exert a certain amount of pressure in order to obtain truthful statements. For this purpose the technique of interrogating even permits the use of stratagems and tricks.
of the time cost Schubert much trouble and a hard fight. It is clear that Mr. Wartenberg remained adamant when it came to the point of changing that formulation which was his sole reason for preparing the affidavit, especially as the words "supervise" etc. do not so much express a concrete activity as suggest that one's presence has a definite implication. It was, however, impossible to imply this meaning from Schubert's presence because in no mobile unit of Germany was it permitted that a 1st Lieutenant "supervise" a major and several other senior officers. Furthermore, on the same day, Ohlendorf as Troop Chief, and Braune as Kommando Leader were, themselves, witnesses to this execution, consequently, all attempts to brand Schubert as Ohlendorf's substitute, or to charge that he had commanding authority or supervisory duties are frustrated by this fact alone.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that will be a good point in which to have the morning recess, Dr. Koessl.
DR. KOESSL: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess fifteen minutes.
(Recess)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. HOFFMAN: Dr. Hoffman for the defendant Nosske. ing session today?
THE PRESIDENT: That will all depend on whether we can get in the remaining closing statements before 4:30 this afternoon. We have three more statements here after Dr. Kossel finishes.
DR. HOFFMAN: Your Honor, then I would ask that the following defendants be excused for this afternoon, and if there is an evening session, also for this evening: The defendants Seibert, Jost, Fendler, Sandberger, Steimle, Nosske, Schulz, Blume and Ott, in order to prepare their final statements.
DR. DURCHALZ: Dr. Durchalz for the defendant Schulz.
May I make a suggestion, your Honor. In case there should be an evening session today, it would perhaps be useful that between 5:30 and 8:30 there would be no session, because there is only a possibility for the defense between 6:00 and 8:00 o'clock to speak to the defendants. Since the final statements have to be in writing, it would perhaps be useful if we could take care of it during that period, and have the remainder of the session this evening to be held from 8:30 on. I am speaking for the entire defense.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be agreeable to the Tribunal. If we have an evening session it would be from eight-thirty on until we finish the closing summations. And with regard to the motion made by Dr. Hoffmann, the following defendants will be excused from attendance in Court this afternoon, and if there is an evening session, from this evening's session, the defendants Seibert, Jost, Fendler, Sandberger, Steimle, Nosske, Schultz, Blume, Ott.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Your Honor, after the defendants that you have just mentioned have now been excused this afternoon, and since there is no possibility now to speak to these defendants may I ask that the Secretary General be instructed that he should tell Mr. Joseph in Room 55 that these defendants may be brought over there in order to speak to their counsel?
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Joseph? Mr. who?
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Yes, Mr. Joseph.
THE PRESIDENT: In which room?
DR. DURCHHOLZ: 57.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Secretary General so inform Mr. Joseph in Room 57. Very well.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Thank you, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Now, such defendants as have their statements ready by four-thirty or five o'clock should turn them in to somebody so that translations can be made tonight. Let's see first to whom to turn them in. Whichever statements are ready this afternoon should be taken to Room 106 and given to Mr. Hodges, not to be delivered anywhere else, because those statements will be given special attention because of the time element, so that as a statement is ready counsel for that particular defendant will take the statement to Room 106. Very well, proceed.
DR. KOESSL: I do not believe that there exists an army in the whole world in which principles of troop leadership different in that respect prevail.
The pressure that Mr. Wartenberg exerted during the interrogations may not even have exceeded the usual limits. But when we hear of threats with a broom or of the stipulation that every correction must be approved by Mr. Wartenberg, or of solitary confinement in an unheated cell, then I, at least, am of the opinion that even in a subsequent purely theoretical consideration of all the circumstances one must at least take into account that the defendant was not free in his decisions, nor at his best to defend his interests in a haggling about words, as Mr. Wartenberg termed the discussion about the expressions "supervise" etc., and to hold his ground.
Schubert's statements in connection with this not only comprise a clarification of prima facie seemingly contradictory actions and statements, but they grant also an insight into Schubert's personality and illuminate the credibility of his own statements. When Schubert here testifies that he was once threatened with a broom by Mr. Wartenberg and thereby puts himself into contradiction with Mr. Wartenberg's statement, then I can only express my conviction that Schubert told the truth. influence whatever that the execution was held, his duty was only to see for himself if it was done in the manner Ohlendorf had ordered, and to report to the latter what he had seen. charge by the Prosecution that Ohlendorf had sent Schubert to substitute for him in inspecting executions, is not in accordance with the powers granted to Schubert, nor with the factual happenings, and furthermore, that the confusing formulations in his affidavit were not corrected by him for the sole reason that he was simply unable to obtain Mr. Wartenberg's approval for it at that time.