His opinion of peoples became the basis of Ohlendorf's entire SD work against other National Socialist efforts. Elich gives a number of examples for this, most of all from the occupied territories and concerning the treatment of foreign workers in Germany. Elich also testified, and I quote, that, "It is known to me that in consequence of this concept Ohlendorf proposed to Heydrich about 1940 for submission to the Reichsfuehrer SS, that the Jews should be given a status of a minority, according to which they should be treated as a recognized racial minority." Elich also is witness of the measures and threats by Himmler towards Office II and Ohlendorf resulting from the report by Ohlendorf against the power politic of Koch in the Ukraine.
I offer Document No. 11 as Exhibit No. 34. It is an affidavit by Dr. Hans Roessner, referant and department chief for cultural questions in the SD Inland from 1940 until 1945. During his time of service under Ohlendorf he Roesner experienced strong criticism, from him, but Roessner wanted to give this affidavit to the Tribunal particularly in view of the charges raised against Ohlendorf. I ask the Tribunal to make special use of this affidavit in particular because it is the most extensive report about the actual activity of Ohlendorf as a political human being. Just as an indication I would like to mention that Roessner testified that in the SD, in spite of threats by Himmler, Ley and Bormann, Ohlendorf continued in positive opposition against the National Socialist leadership which expressed itself in a negative way, and I quote. "In any case Ohlendorf still was the strongest exponent and a driving mental power against any misdevelopments and excesses, as the state, the Party and the cheifs of the Wehrmacht are being reproached with now."
I continue to quote. "Ohlendorf in countless SD-reports signed by him addressed to the authorities of the Reich, in discussions, conferences, addresses before party functionaries, SS-Fuehrer and Officers of the Wehrmacht wholeheartedly took a clear stand against appearances of despotism in cultural life, As one example of many, I cite a lecture of Ohlendorf's which I, too, heard which he gave perhaps in February 1944 at the Wartburg before all Educational Directors of the Party and its organizations." I continue to quote. "In this lecture and others, the basic thought of Ohlendorf's was, "that man could dare, wholeheartedly, to oppose the highest powerpolitic ain and signs of corruption and publicly espouse the cause of cleanliness and healthiness in the economic and cultural life." Roessner also gives many individual examples from all domestic spheres which Ohlendorf testified in his opinions, in word, writing and deed, including his fight against Fascism which caused official complaints by the Ambassador Alfieri with Himmler.
Roessner rather then draws the human conclusion, and I quote, "There are few examples, I think, that the closer collaborators, without exception, and as can be proven, now will stand by the side of their former office chief, not because they obeyed this orders or because they had sworn to a common party dogma, but because they still today recognize the pure will of Ohlendorf, and his spiritual independence even now. A deeper recognition Ohlendorf already found before 1945, in that groups of people who increased from year to year, people of all professions and social positions came to him and his collaborators in the SD Inland, in order to openly tell him about their desires, their criticisms and their worries. Party membership or political attitude was never mentioned on this occasion. These people, scientist, artists, teachers, men and women came sponstaneous and voluntarily to Ohlendorf and to the SD because there they found the only means of exercising criticism and their fuctual or position. Here Ohlendorf and the SD gained great confidence in particular from the population who were not party members.
Dr. Roessner finally describes the situation of Ohlendorf which appears tragic to him, athat in spite of this situation because of the constantly growing mistrust and the increasing objection by the highest authorities as a spiritual originator of an opposition and an alleged defeatism, he was reproached and threatened for this. According to the description of an actual loneliness of Ohlendorf, in the framework of the national socialist regime, he repeats a statement by Himmler made during the last few days in lay 1945 which reads something like this, and I quote, "If I had heard your opinion earlier and recognized it, many things would certainly have developped differently." Roessner adds, I quote, "This remark expresses more than general observations concerning the importance and tragedy of Ohlendorf."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Aschenauer, where did this conversation take place in the last days of May?
DR. ASCHENAUER: The discussion took place in Flensburg. Ohlendorf testified this in the witness stand as well, and this is a confirmation for Ohlendorf's testimony.
PRESIDENT: Well, when did Himmler commit suicide?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Himmler committed suicide, I believe on 22 May '45
THE PRESIDENT: In June?
DR. ASCHENAUER: June.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't realize it was so late. I thought it was shortly after the termination of the war.
DR. ASCHENAUER: No, about two months after the end of the war.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, very well.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I offer Document Number 35. It is an affidavit by Dr. Erhard Maeding, chief of the Department constitution and administration in Office III, SD inland in the year 1944. Maeding worked on obtaining news and information concerning administrative reform questions in particular and owing to his activity in this field, he states that this is clear in particular, that the SD Inaldn did not consider it to be their task to secure a certain form of state and administration in the state, but he describes the actual task which Ohlendorf considered to be the task of the SD, and I quote: "From discussions it could be seen that Herr Ohlendorf was deeply worried about the inner misdevelopment of the German state life in the previously mentioned and in other connections. His attitude was not based on technical considerations of usefulness, and not because these organizational experiments were unsuccessful, but they were founded on clear social philosophical and ethical convictions. The state life could not be organized as a formidable legislative and compulsion apparatus, but the administrative tasks were to be shared to a last extent by many spheres of life, locality, profession, or otherwise according to who were to act independently in the administration. This social basic opinion of a community which was to be made of as many individuals and independent existences and units as possible which were to form Fin elastic society penetrated his attitude, his concept of state. The community life was to be built up on a structure of cooperative living, the central administration was to be limited very strictly.
The thought of a total administrative mechanism was rejected by Herr Ohlendorf in the same manner as any dogmatization of political, thoughts or even the monopolizing of political initiative and authorizations of professional party functionaries.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Aschenauer, now do you think that it is necessary to go into Such detail in each of these affidavits? We now have a pretty good picture of just what these affidavits intend to demonstrate, and don't you think that if you summarized in a sentence or two what each affidavit is attempting to establish, that your purpose would be fulfilled?
DR. ASCHENAUER: I shall try to be brief, your Honor. I offer Document Number 13 as Exhibit Number 36. It is an affidavit by Dr. Helmut Seydel, a former legal referent in Office III of the SD Inland, and describes the attitude of Ohlendorf towards the national socialist justice authorities.
I offer Document Number 17 as Exhibit Number 37. It is the affidavit by Dr. Heinrich Malz, who from 1940 until 1944 was chief of the legal department in Office III. Dr. Malz testifies to the same tasks as mentioned in Document Number 13. He describes the fight for the development, and for the maintenance of the legal state. I stress in this statement Ohlendorf' s initiative, in the legal field, according to which Ohlendorf repeatedly tried for an independent legal procedure with regard to the way in which protective custody which was to be enforced as part of the legal police.
I offer Document Number 14 as Exhibit Number 38. It is an affidavit by Dr. Sigrid Barlen, another female collaborator of Ohlendorf in the cultural department which is to be evaluated particularly as a character testimony.
I offer Document Number 15 as Exhibit Number 39. It is the affidavit by Dr. Franz Hayler, who at the end was state secretary in the Reich Economic Ministry, from 1938 until 1943, he was chief of the Reich Group III, trade, and in both positions he was the immediate superior of the defendant Ohlendorf. In this affidavit Dr. Hayler confirm the professional activity by Ohlendorf as given before.
I offer the Document Number 16 as Exhibit Number 40. It is an affidavit by Dr. Gustav Schlotterer, who at the end was Ministerial Director in the Reich Ministry of Economics.
Schlotterer also offered his affidavit on his own initiative, although he had personal differences with Ohlendorf in the Reich Ministry of Economics and Ohlendorf was known as his opponent. Schlotterer states that tolerance and expert knowledge were the basis of the personnel policy of Ohlendorf.
I offer Document Number 19 as Exhibit 41. It is the affidavit by Walter Solbeens Ministerial counciller in the Reich Ministry of Economics. The statements by Solbeens complete the statements by Dr. Hayler and Schlotterer about the attitude and the work of Ohlendorf in the Reich Ministry for Economics. I quote briefly from Solbeens' statements, "It could be found that we as experts for the first time had a support with regard to attempts by the SS, the party and the DAF, the German workers' front who tried to exercise influence in the economic sphere."
I offer Document Number 20 as Exhibit Number 43. This is an affidavit by Dr. Elmer Michel, who at the end was Ministerial Director in the Ministry of Economics. This statement by an opponent of the party also completes the statements made by Dr. Hayler. He explains that Ohlendorf rejected any party political prejudices and, therefore, very soon in a number questions was in direct opposition to the party, in particular to the DAF, the German labor, front, and without fear always stuck up for his point of view even towards the highest party authorities.
I offer Document Number 21 as Exhibit Number 43. This is an affidavit by Dr. Josef Duetsch, manager of the economic group, retail trade, who was in official contact with Ohlendorf from 1937 until 1945. He also testifies, and I quote "It was particularly recognized that Ohlendorf, always stood up for his opinions which often opposed the usual tendencies of the Third Reich toward everybody." It also says, "In 1940 in a protest meeting which was called by the member of the committee of the trade organizations. Ohlendorf attacked Dr. Ley's policy in a manner which was not at all customary in the Third Reich." These are two affidavits given by two workers from his home community and which are a certificate for his character showing the opinion of people in his home town, before the taking over of the power in 1933 by Hitler and afterwards until 1945, and the giving reputation he had in his home town.
I offer the Document Number 26 as Exhibit Number 47. this Document Book I A. I offer this Document Number 26 as Exhibit Number 47. This is an affidavit by Horst Webendorfer. He also offered to give his affidavit without being asked to do so. And he describes in particular the fight offer Lay against Ohlendorf, and that Ley asks Himmler to get rid of Ohlendorf.
I offer the Document Number 27 as Exhibit Number 48. It is an affidavit by Dr. Hans Roessner. Dr. Roessner testifies here about Ohlendorf' s political fight for freedom of the individual and he talks about an episode which is of importance for this, namely, the attempt of Ohlendorf-through many years, to try from the bottom to attain that the party bureaucra cy and the government of the party chancellery be destroyed. This was the attempt of getting the help of the leaders of the Hitler Youth in order to attain this aim.
I offer Document Number 28 as Exhibit Number 49. This is an affidavit by the Reich Minister Dr. Hans Lammers, the chief of the Reich Chancellery. The prosecution brought up the question whether the defendant, Ohlendorff, did not have the opportunity to complain to the fuehrer and supreme commander of the Wehrmacht about the general order of killing in the Eastern campaign. Lammers testifies, giving individual reasons that Ohlendorf's position was neither high enough nor it was that technically possible for him to get a personal audience with the fuehrer because of this position.
I offer Document Number 29 as Exhibit Number 50. It is an affidavit by Werner Lorenz, the former chief of the VOMI. Lorenz states that because of his activity as chief of Einsatzgruppe D in Russia in October 1941, Ohlendorf was on his suggestion spontaneously promoted to SS oberfuehrer. The reason for the promotion was the work done by Ohlendorf in the ethnic German resettlement territory in Transuistria for which the ethnic German resettlement office was competent.
I offer the Document Number 30 as Exhibit Number 51. This is an affidavit by Dr. Erich von der Heyde from the time of his activity in the economical staff of the OKW. He testifies that Ohlendorf in the fall of 1934 held a lecture to the economi staff in the OKW caused great surprise which because of the open criticism of the economic policy of the Reich of the policy of the NSDAP in general and especially of Speer, Ley, and Bormann.
I think I made a mistake in the year, it is 1944.
I offer Document Number 31, as Exhibit Number 52. It is another statement by Dr. Erich von der Heyde from the time when he was in contact with Ohlendorf as an employee of the I.G. Farben and simultaneously as honorary collaborator in the economic intelligence service in the SD. Heyde testifies that in the years 1939 and 1940 Ohlendorf repeatedly supported applications for emigration for Jewish employees of the I.G. Farben with the Gostapo, although he neither knew the Jews concerned, nor did he have any interest in them.
I offer Document Number 32 as Exhibit Number 53. This is an affidavit by Rudolf Fumy from 1938 to 1945. His affidavit of the document submitted by the prosecution attacks the credibility. According to his affidavit, the reports of events and the details therein do not give the exact happening in the East, and can only to a very limited extent be considered as a verbal repetition of th original reports.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I offer Document No. 33 as Exhibit No. 54. This is a personal letter of the Reichsfuehrer SS to the SS Brigadefuehrer Ohlendorf of 31 October 1943. I have submitted this letter as one of the pieces of evidence to show the relation between the Reichsfuehrer SS and Ohlendorf.
I offer Document No. 34 as Exhibit No. 55. This is a letter of thanks of the Tartar Committee of the District of Simferopol of 2 July 1942. In this letter there is expressed among other things, and I quote: "The Tartars in the Crimea were so oppressed and enslaved during the Bolshevist regime that they had lost almost all their Tartar ethnic characteristics.
"The firm foundation of our love and confidence in the German people is the result of your thorough and unselfish work.
"The Tartar people appreciate and will never forget your services."
I offer Document No. 35 as Exhibit No. 56. It is a letter by the Defendant Ohlendorf to his then fiancee at the time of February 1934. I ask the Tribunal to take notice of this entire letter.
I offer Document No. 36 as Exhibit No. 57. It is a correspondence with Professor Dr. Otto Donner, who is now living in America. He also shows the active tolerance towards non-natuinal socialists, when they were oppressed by official offices of the Reich and were presecuted by other agencies.
I offer Document No. 37 as Exhibit No. 58. This is an excerpt from the minutes of the session of the INT, page 1869 and 1870 of the interrogation of Dicter Wisliceny of 3 January 1946. I submit this examination as evidence for the fact that the so-called final solution of the Jewish question, that is, the extermination of the Jews as Jews in Europe was expressed only in the letter by Himmler of April 1943 to the Chief of the Security Police and the SD, and the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps The testimony is a confirmation of the further examination of the Defendant Ohlendorf who states that the Fuehrer Order for the Russian Campaign originated independently from the so-called final solution of the Jewich question.
Shall I go to Document Book No. 4 before the recess, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Just about how much more do you have, Dr. Aschenauer, So we can arrange Our program for this morning?
DR. ASCHENAUER: In all, there are the documents up to Exhibit No. 64; that is, another six documents are to be introduced and one judicial notice of a document already introduced to the Tribunal
THE PRESIDENT: Yes Who will follow Dr. Aschenauer in the presentation of documents?
You, Dr. Belzer? Yes.
Very well and then will anybody else be reedy after Dr. Belzer?
DR. STUEBINGER: Dr. Stuebinger.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you will be ready. Just a moment please. Mr. Ferencz. Yes, Mr. Ferencz.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, we have a list here of all of the document books in English which have been Served on the prosecution and the list indicates that almost all of the defendants have completed document books to a certain extent. That is, some are introducing two or three books, two of which have been translated and the third of which is still being processed. in so far as they are completed. For example, if the Defendant Just has two books completed and anticipates having two more, which are now being translated, that he give us these two so that we can have a basis from to prepare our rebuttal, rather then have us wait until the last page in the last document book is done. If he can give us the book that he already has finished, I think that, will facilitate matters,
THE PRESIDENT: You have heard Mr. Ferencz' statements and the Tribunal concurs with it. We might also indicate to counsel that in the preparation of the presentation of documents that if they are going to refer to the documents that instead of reading the text a very brief condensation be already in the mind of the counsel so that he can give the idea without having to read from the document itself, because if we must sit here and listen to the reading of all these documents, naturally, it will be an interminable proceeding.
I do not mean by this, Dr. Aschenauer, that we are in any way criticizing your presentation. On the c ntrary, we think you did a very nice job in presenting your documents.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Aschenauer, before you begin, the Tribunal would like to announce that it would appreciate that all defense counsel, or as many as are available, be present when we reconvene at 1:45 (1345 hours) and all Prosecution counsel also, Mr. Ferencz, so that we can discuss just what we have before us in the way of document books and all relevant matters, so we can map out the program now for the termination of all the proceedings. Thank you. Proceed Dr. Aschenauer.
DR. Aschenauer; I now come to Document Book IV. As the first document in Document Book IV, I offer Document No. 54, as Exhibit No. 59. This is the notification in the military passport for Otto Ohlendorf of 20 November 1939. It shows that Ohlendorf at the beginning of the war was deferred from service for the Reich Group Trade, that is, that his war service was supposed to be performed in the Reich Group Trade. I quote: "The possible order on the part of the Reich Group Trade is to be complied with by you at any time in peace, as well as in war. That noncompliance with this draft is punishable. During the war reporting as a volunteer is useless, and is, therefore, to be refrained from. "Now I offer the second document of this volume, that is the No. 55, as Exhibit No. 60. It is an affidavit of Dr. Lammers, as a completion to the affidavit of 20 October 1947, which was submitted as Exhibit No. 49, and which was Document No. 28. The third document in this book with the No. 56, I offer asExhibit No. 61. First of all, I would like to correct a translation mistake. On page 11 it says under "A": "The Reichfuehrer-SS and Chief of the German Police," and not "Reich Security Main Office." This is an affidavit of Dr. Hans Ehlich, who as I have already said, who was active in a fulltime capacity from 1 February 1937 until the end of the war in the Security Service of the Reichsuehrer-SS and who since 1940 was a Department Chief in Office III, the chief of which was Ohlendorf's work. The affidavit supplements some statements of the IMT Judgment, or corrects them.
I may quote briefly: "The new Office III, SD Tuland of the RSHA as the only central office for the SD work at home didn't have any sphere of work and had no mission as far as political opponents are concerned, and it had no political function or power. It worked completely independently from the missions of the Security Police. The restriction of the missions of Office-III of the RSHA, to purely objective task of importance about the domestic field, and the avoidance of any reference of this work to any political field was the demand of Ohlendorf when he founded Office III of the RSHA. "It is, therefore determined in this affidavit that from 1939 to 1945 no combatting of political enemies and no kind of executive power waspresent. Ehlich answered, therefore, to a number of individual questions about the activity or non-activity of Ohlendorf within Office III. The last document in this volume is Document No. 57, and I offer it as Exhibit No. 62. This is an affidavit, of Heinz Wanninger, in the end Referent for general questions of organization of the RSHA. He supplements the statements in the affidavit, that Dr. Hans Ehrlich which has just been submitted treats the organizational questions of the Office of the RSHA and the Offices of Chief of Security Police and SD at home, and in the occupied territories, as well as the special position of Einsatsgruppes and Einsatzcommando in the Russian campaign, which, as militant special units, were no agencies, or offices, or parts, or branches of the offices of the RSHA, especially not the Offices III, IV, VI and VII of the RSHA. Then I have two more individual documents which have reference to the subject as to whether the struggle of the East was regarded as a struggle between two races by the defendants, or whether it was merely a matter of measures which were taken for security reasons. These two documents refute the thesis of the Prosecution, and I may hand them both to the Tribunal. I would like to offer the German copy with the document No. 62 as Exhibit No. 63, and the English copy as Exhibit No. 62-A -- or rather, as No. 63-A. Document 63 or 63A is offered as Exhibit No. 64 or 64-A. I quote:
"Top Secret. A few thoughts about the treatment of aliens in the East, We have to see to it ---"
THE PRESIDENT: Which document are you reading from now Dr. Aschenauer?
DR. ASCHENAUER: From 62. I just gave it to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, what the number have you given that?
DR. ASCHENAUER: 62, as Exhibit 63.
THE PRESIDENT: We have a document -
JUDGE DIXON: I think I have found them now.
THE PRESIDENT: What happened, that each one of the Judges got three copies of the same document. All right, proceed.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I quote: "Concerning the treatment of aliens in the East, we have to see to it that we acknowledge and cultivated many individual Ethnic groups as possible. That is, outside of Poles, Jews, Ukranians, White Russians, the Gorals, etc. If other small and isolated national groups can be found in the other places, they should be treated the same way." document submitted in the IMT, the Document No. 710-PS. I would just like to quote into the record: "Reichmarshall of the Greater German Reich. Berlin, July 1941, and the Chief of Security Police and SD, as SSGruppenfuehrer Heydrich, As a supplement to the task assigned to you on 24 January 1939, to solve the Jewish question in the form of emigration or evacuation, and to find as favorable a solution as possible I give you the order," and so forth.
DR. ASCHENAUER (continued): I am at the end of my documents. I have before me the documents handed over by the Prosecution in Case XII. As such these documents offer nothing new. They prove the knowledge of the Army, the participation of the Army, and the jurisdiction in the area of sovereignty. I don't have the intention to continue to submit these matters unless I decide to submit a trial brief with short quotations, at the time of my final plea.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Do you want any ruling on that?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Well, if the official permission would be given for this it might be good to have it in the record.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Fenercz, do you have something to say to this?
MR. FERENCZ: Not on this particular point, on the general matter.
THE PRESIDENT: You are permitted to do what you have asked, Dr. Aschenauer.
MR. FERENCZ: May it please your Honor, there are certain fundamental objections which are applicable to many of the documents offered by the defendant Ohlendorf. I refer particularly to Document Books, II, II-A, II-B in their entirety. Book II begins with the so-called expert legal opinion on the concept of notation or necessity as a defense. The other materials in Books II-A and B are offered in support of that legal opinion. We must examine these things as a whole to see if they can be admitted. If the Court will turn to page 2 of Ohlendorf's Document Book II they will find a table of contents of this one legal opinion. You will notice, your Honors, that parts A and B concern the law to be applied. These are the first 12 pages. With this we have no quarrel. The remaining 50 pages are quite another matter. They deal with the objective and subjective prerequisites concerning the facts about the Soviet War, whether it was an aggressive war, whether International law would be followed by Russia and Russian's conduct before and after 1941. It can be readily seen, your Honors, that these are matters of fact and not of law. The affiant purports to give an expert opinion on these questions of fact. Books II-A and B are extracts to support these facts.
What the affiant presents as fact is nothing less than a very clear exposition of a print of view which has nearly wreched the world. We cannot allow these matters to stand on these records as great statements of fact, These matters have already been argued and decided by the International Military Tribunal. If the Tribunal here desires to open these factual questions to re-examination we will produce evidence to the contrary. To do so, however, will entail bringing into this case many questions already considered and decided by the first International Tribunal. Part C-2 of this so-called legal opinion, this is on page 2--A of the document book your Honors, concerns the official Nazi theory of Jewry and Bolshevism and the defendant's own experience and imagination on this subject. Here gain the matter has nothing to do with law and less to do with fact and are certainly beyond the scope of any export legal opinion. opinion on maters of continental law. We will not object to Ohlendorf including in his closing statement his own subjective victor of the facts but we must not forget this trial is open to the world and will be studied by future generations. We cannot permit the distortion of very important facts disguised as expert legal opinion to remains as a permanent block unchanged and unchallenged on this record. We ask the Tribunal to consider this matter and to study these documents before making a ruling. Mr. Walton will present additional specific objections.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed Mr. Walton.
MR. WALTON: If your Honors please, if you will permit me I should like to take up the documents in the document books in the order in which they appear rather than in the order in which they were presented. I kept score but I have no guarantee it is right as far as the exhibit number is concerned and when I wrote my notes for the objections I did not have the exhibit numbers and will refer to the document by the page it appears in the document book and the name of the affiant or document as it appears in the record.
THE PRESIDENT: Once you do that there can be no possibility of error so tire recommend you follow that announced policy.
MR. WALTON: At this time, then, I wish to file certain specific objections to Documents Book I which I will take up by documents as they appear in that volume, Document #1, in this Document Book, the affidavit of Andreas Predoehl dated 9 October 1947, pages 1 and 2. The difficulties of the defendant while a student at Kiel University are immaterial to the charges of murder or membership in criminal organizations. For that reason we object, Does the Tribunal wish to rule after each objection is uttered?
THE PRESIDENT: No, the rulings will be made after we have had an opportunity to consider the objection and studying of the documents themselves.
MR. WALTON: Very well, I will continue without further interruption.
THE PRESIDENT: Please do.
MR. WALTON: Document 1-A, being a affidavit of Dr. Wilhelm Greiser. While it contains matters which tire believe to be immaterial, Prosecution does not urge an objection since it is in part a character affidavit.
Document 2, affidavit of Dr. Karl Gebhardt, dated 15 August 1947, pages 9-21 in the English text is objected to because the personal relationships between Himmler and the defendant Ohlendorf are not material to the issues in this case. Neither is a summation of Himmler's attitude toward his subordinate leaders, his morals, or his personal idiosyncrasies helpful as background material nor do they have any bearing on the issues involved. The same can be said of the affiant Gebhardt's conception of Ohlendorf's political philosophy in comparison with that belonging to Himmler. Furthermore this is a purported affidavit but, no jurat appears on the document.
Document #3, the affidavit of Karl Wolff, dated 10 September 1947, pages 22 to 25. The same objection as to Ohlendorf document 2 applies to this document. Furthermore should the Gebhardt statement and not the affidavit be accepted in lieu or in place of a character affidavit, this document is merely cummulative testimony on the same point.
This document has no jurat Document #4, the affidavit of Karl Hedrich, undated document, pages 26 to 35 of the Document Book.
It is cummulative evidence on the point of the defendant's political philosophy, his struggles -
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Walton, I don't think we are going to be concerned - I don't think the Tribunal will be particularly concerned whether the document is cummulative. If it is relevant and sheds light, even excessively on a point which the defense considers important there seems no reason why we don't take it, study it and evaluate it, especially in view of the fact, that it is now already processed. If required to go out and get more then we might consider that. And, furthermore the character of each defendant is certainly attacked and what ever he can present to show that his character is such that would preclude the criminals intention imputed to the defendant it is certainly relevant.
MR. WALTON: I can only get my interpretation and give them as my objections. What the Tribunal does is, of course, their function but I should like to go on record with these objections.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well we don't want you to gain the hope that you were succeeding in that particular argument.
MR. WALTON: I assure the Tribunal it is entirely impersonal. I merely put in the objections, the Tribunal acts on them. immaterial to the issues in this case and this document, being document #4, is also without a jurat. No date that the document was signed appears.
Document to. 5, the affidavit of Dr. Gerhard Klopfer, dated 3 October 1947, pages 36 to 38. This document is objected to on the grounds of immateriality and while it is admitted that in the course of time it may have some historical value it is, in my opinion of the Prosecution, of no value to the material issues of the case.
No jurat appears on this document.
Document 6 _ this is the affidavit of Hans Fritzsche, dated 18 August 1947, pages 39 to 41. The criminality of the SD is established by Control Council Law #10 and by judgment of the International Military Tribunal. Evidence to the contrary is immaterial. As this criminality of the SD is now a raised adjudicata matter. The mere fact that the SD under Ohlendorf was engaged in some legal activities is no guarantee that the Security Police and SD were innocent of crimes in the occupied territories of Russia. This Tribunal does not concern itself primarily with actions taken by Germans against Germans. As was said in the Medical case it is only when crimes or illegal acts are committed on Nationals of other countries does it become of concern to the family of nations. This document is also objected to because it lacks a jurate.
An unworn statement of Dore Neumann, being document #7, dated 11 October 1947. This is immaterial as to the issues in the case because this affiant only testifies to the defendant's activities In Berlin and in the RSHA. She admits she knows nothing of the SD or the Einsatzgruppe activities in Russia.
Document #8. statement of Dr. Rudolf Hauschka, dated 16 August 1947, pages 46 and 47. The defendant Ohlendorf's attitude toward German practitioners of anthropography whether tolerant or intolerant is not material to the question of his attitude toward Russian Jews, Gypsies and Communist functionaries. Charitable acts toward this affiant has no bearing on his uncharitable acts toward people in occupied territories of Russia marked for slaughter.