It is specially emphasized here that former members of the Red Army are found again and again among the partisans. It is also reported that partisans and Communists, as well as Jews, constantly attempted, through the distribution of Bolshevist leaflets, to try to freighten the civilian population and to spread propaganda through this medium. Special Kommando 7a reports that in the dense forests southeast of Demidov a large number of partisans had been discovered, for the fighting of which AOK, the Army High Command 9, had put two divisions at their disposal. In the progress of this action a number of people, namely 693, were arrested and interrogated. Of this about two-thirds were immediately released again as beyond suspicion. 72 civilians could be determined to be former members of the Red Army and were immediately taken over into a prisoners of war camp. Reports about Special Kommando 7a describe the special task, which a special group of the Army High Command carried out in a number of localities in the sector Welish, a number of operations against partisan groups, during the course of which altogether 27 partisans were arrested and after a proper investigation had to be shot.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you omit purposely Exhibit No. 27, the number?
DR. MAYER: This is Exhibit No. 26, Document No. 27. Document No. 28 is Exhibit No. 27: Document No. 29 is Exhibit No. 28; Document No. 30 is Exhibit No. 29.
THE PRESIDENT: Document No. 28 seems to not be in its regular place.
DR. MAYER: I shall try and find out from the English document book, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Why not try to straighten that our during the recess?
DR. MAYER: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:45.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: Take your seats, please.
DR. MAYER: Mayer for Steimle. morning. The Document Number 27, Exhibit Number 26, is the Operation Report No. 106, dated 7th of October 1941. The next Operation Report, which is No. 107, has the Document Number 28 in my German text but in the English Document Book this report too got the Number 27 by mistake. Therefore, the Operation Report No, 107 dated 8th of October 41 must have the Document No. 28, and the Exhibit No. 27 in the English. I think that clarifies it.
May I then proceed please, your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Please.
DR. MAYER: As the next document I offer Document Steimle No. 30 Exhibit No. 29. These are excerpts from the Operation Reports Numbers 109 and 121, dated the 10th of October and the 22nd of October 1941. They contain no reports from Einsatzgruppe B.
As Document Steimle No. 31, Exhibit No. 30, I submit excerpts from the Report No. 122, dated the 23rd of October 1941. This excerpt does contain a report from Einsatzgruppe B, which only concerns itself with church questions and economic questions which are of no interest here.
As Steimle Document No. 32, Exhibit No. 31, I submit an excerpt from the Operation Report 123 of the 24th of October 1914. Here it is established that the Partisan activities are a gain extraordinarily strong and that in the Velikie Luki along 19 reports about partisan activities have been received. The constant and serious threat of the rear lines, supply lines, of the fighting troops is always emphasized again. A study of the excerpt submitted shows very clearly the partisan danger in the area of Einsatzgruppe B and especially in the group of the Special Kommand 7A, as it is emphasized again that in the swamps and forest area south-east of Demidov, strong partisan groups are present.
Of interest is also the determination repeated here that the Jews are being evacuated to the east according to plan in an ever increasing degree by the Red Army. Therefore it is always reported again and again the places through which the evacuation took place were free of Jews because they were evacuated by the Bolshevists before the German troops marched in. Special Kommando 7A, among other things, reports the execution of 12 operations against partisans. The operations were carried out with the army participating and 41 partisans were liquidated in this. An attack by partisans on a transport of seriously wounded men in the area of the Velish-Ussviaty, in the area of Special Kommando 7A, induced a sub-kommando of Special Kommando 7A to safeguard the other transports of seriously wounded people and to comb the area for partisans. submitted by the Prosecution in its Document Book II-B, where they carry the Exhibit Nos. 65 and 63. I did not include these Operation Reports in my Document Book because I do not want to add anything to the excerpts from these reports which have already been submitted by the Prosecution.
As Document Steimle No. 33, Exhibit No. 32, I offer excerpts from the Operation Reports 126 and 132. These excerpts show merely that no reports from Einsatzgruppe B are available between the period between the 29th of October 1941 to the 12th of November 1941.
As Steimle Document No. 34, Exhibit No. 33, I submit an excerpt from the Operation Report No. 133 of the 14th of November 1941. Here again it is established that the Jewish population, together with the Communist Party members and skilled workers had fled, after they had been asked to flee by the continued Soviet propaganda. Special Kommando 7A reports that it is advancing and that the bad weather and the muddy roads render the advance and the use of the vehicles more difficult. The partisan activity, according to this report, became more and more a matter of sabotage acts. The discovery of a partisan organization of 39 members and 16 women, is especially interesting apart from the fact that usually youthful people were used for the performance of espionage services.
As Steimle Document No. 35, Exhibit No. 34, I submit certified excerpts from the Operation Reports 134 to 142, dated the 17th of November 1941 and 5th of December 1941. In this entire period, as is evident from the excerpts, no reports were made by Einsatzgruppe B.
As Steimle Document No. 36, Exhibit No. 35, I offer an excerpt from the Operation Report No. 143, dated 8th of December 1941, which shows only an unimportant report from Einsatzgruppe B.
As Steimle Document No. 37, Exhibit No. 36, I submit an excerpt from the Operation Report No, 144, dated 10th of December 1941, which likewise indicates an unimportant report from Einsatzgruppe B.
As Steimle Document No. 38, Exhibit 37, I submit an excerpt from the Operation Report No, 145, dated 12th of December 1941. Here, too, the content of the report of Einsatzgruppe B is evident only in an excerpt, inasfar as the Prosecution, in submitting its excerpts from the same document, which is in Document Book II-B, under Exhibit No. 86, did not bring this.
As Steimle Document No. 39, Exhibit No. 38, I submit an excerpt from the Operation Report No. 146, dated the 15th of December 1941. It contains parts of a report in which it is established that the flight of Jews towards the east continues before the advancing German troops. It also is specially reported here about the destruction battalions which the Soviets set up for the rear lines of communications of the German troops and which were made up of civilians. Their mission was the carrying out of large sabotage actions. a single document which is a supplement to Document Book I.
As Steimle Document No. 40, Exhibit No. 39, I offer a further affidavit by Karl Radl, dated 25 of November 1947. Radl says here that the 9th Army had made a proclamation in Russian and German in the area of Special Kommando 7A before the time when Steimle was leader of this kommando, according to which all former members of the Soviet Army had to report to the nearest German unit for registration.
A non-compliance with this order resulted in the fact that these former Red Army men were treated as franctikeurs and could be punished by the death. This order by the 9th Army was not directed against uniformed Russian units which operated behind the German lines. Your Honor --
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Mayer, as a matter of curiosity --- Just as a matter of curiosity, if an un-uniformed Soviet soldier registered, reported and said, "Yes, I am a Russian Soldier, but I am wearing civilian clothes," wouldn't he be subject to the death penalty just because of that fact?
DR. MAYER: I can't say offhand, Your Honor. It would depend on the circumstances and that it depends on what the alleged soldier would be charged with.
THE PRESIDENT: But that's a rule in war, that a member of the armed forces in operation, if caught in civilian clothing is treated as a spy and therefore subject to the death penalty forthwith. Just what do you intend to establish by this affidavit, Dr. Mayer?
DR. MAYER: This affidavit is offered to establish that Russian soldiers, who were captured as such were not shot. In one of the documents an expression is used which might give some doubt about this. That is why I submitted this document.
THE PRESIDENT: There is one sentence here which supports what you have said and which I had not seen before; "This ordinance is not directed against uniformed Russian units operating behind the German lines," but my original observation holds ture, that a Red Army soldier in civilian clothes would certainly be very foolish to present himself for registration, because it would mean inevitably his death.
DR. MAYER: Yes, Your Honor. I would also like to point out that some time ago, I sent a letter to the Secretary-General with the request of having a number of incorrect translations corrected which were found when the German transcript was compared with the English transcript. I do not know whether this request has already been given to the prosecution and what has been done about it. As a matter of precaution and as the result of the number of incorrect English translation, I would like to point out one thing that proved to be very important. This very point has given cause to the Tribunal to ask a few questions of the Defendant Steimle which probably would not have come up if the testimony of the Defendant Steimle as given in the German transcript would have been correctly interpreted into English.
MR. GLANCY: May it please the Tribunal, I personally am not aware of any application of this type. Perhaps the Doctor could inform me as to the date of this application.
THE PRESIDENT: Well the simpler way would be to find out if the Secretary General has received that request. Are you familiar with it, Mr. Knapp?
MR. KNAPP: No, I am not, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General is directed to look for this request filed on the part of Dr. Mayer.
DR. GLANCY: I find here, Sir, that the application to the Secretary General is dated as of the 8th of January. I am sure the Doctor is aware of the attitude of the prosecution, as far as helpfulness and cooperation is concerned. If there is anything at all we can do to aid him in this respect, we will gladly do so.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Mayer, will you please confer with Mr. Glancy after you have finished with your presentationa and see if you can agree on the modus operandi in correcting these errors and in deciding the corrections which can be made.
DR. MAYER: Yes, Your Honor. May I point out this one matter? Steimle about the concept of so-called suspected partisans, and the point of departure is that Steimle said on the witness stand that a part of these people suspected of being partisans had been people who in some form had provided a voluntary assistance. Actually, however, Steimle -- again quoting from the German transcript pected of being partisans had to be convicted of special assistance if they were to be called to account as people suspected of being partisans. Just this misunderstanding is based on the incorrect translation.
In the German wording of the transcript on page 2,001, dated 5th of November, 1947, it says in reference to this question, and I quote, "Furthermore in some few cases so-called partisan suspects were shot. By this one meant people about whom it could at least be proved that they voluntarily assisted the partisans." The wording in the prosecution's book is incorrectly translated, namely with the words, "Among them were people," instead of "Those who are understood to be people."
MR. GLANCY: There is one question I would like to ask, Sir, the source of Dr. Mayer's information, whether or not it is from the German transcript, the English transcript, or from the automatic tape. The automatic tape is, of course, the final authority and a comparison would have to be made between the transcript and that before we could make the correction.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Mayer, as I indicated before, if you will confer with Mr. Glancy on these various corrections, you can either arrive at an agreement or reference can be had to the sound take and then once it is determined that corrections are required, then we can instruct that errata sheets be prepared to be added to the transcript.
DR. MAYER: Yes, Your Honor, but may I point out that my source is the comparison between the German and English transcript.
THE PRESIDENT: But you see, Dr. Mayer, there is no way for the Tribunal at this moment to make any decision because we have no independent document to turn to. We can only look at the English Transcript. We don't know what is in the German. I don't read German; so that eventually we would have to go to the sound take, so if you will confer with Mr. Glancy and first see if you can reach an agreement upon corrections, then, if you cannot, then you can go to the sound take and then report to the Tribunal and any corrections which have to be made will be made.
DR. MAYER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you give a number to the last document in the Steimle documents?
DR. MAYER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: 29 or 30?
DR. MAYER: 39, Document No. 40, Exhibit No. 39.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, now, are you going to take up Klingelhoefer?
DR. MAYER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. MAYER: (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT KLINGELHOEFER) Klingelhoefer. As Klingelhoefer Document No. 1, Exhibit No. 1, I offer the affidavit of Annelise Mertens, nee Buchholtz, dated 4th of November 1947. This confirms that the father of Frau Mertens, Mr. Adolf Buchholtz, was sentenced in 1937 and confined to 31/2 years imprisonment and after that to the concentration camp for religious reasons. The defendant Klingelhoefer on the request of the affiant used his influence for the liberation of Mr. Buchholtz and it is expressly confirmed that he succeeded in having Mr. Buchholtz released from the prison and thus saved him from the concentration camp.
As Klingelhoefer Document No. 2, Exhibit No. 2, I offer the affidavit of Horst Mahnke, dated 1 November 1947. Mahnke knows the defendant since July 1941, when he was on an official trip to Russia on the order of the German Institute for International Studies, in order to do research work for this institute. In this capacity, he marched together with the Advance Kommando Moscow, since his missions were in the same field as those of the Advance Kommando Moscow. Therefore, Mahnke knows the conditions in the Advance Kommando from his own knowledge. He confirms that Nebe, the Chief of Einsatzbruppe B, tried to bring the Advance Kommando Moscow under his leadership.
He confirms that the Defendant Klingelhoefer, because of his knowledge of the Russian language and his knowledge of Moscow was transferred to the Advance Kommando Moscow when this kommando was set up. He further confirms that the activity of Klingelhoefer in the Advance Kommando Moscow was that of an interpreter and that it was his job to make SD reports in the various domestic fields. Furthermore, Mahnke says in the affidavit that Klingelhoefer was appointed the liaison officer of Nebe to the Advance Kommando Moscow, but expressly only in case Nebe was away. Mahnke considered this appointment of Klingelhoefer as a mere formality. He confirms that in this brief period of time Nebe was never absent and therefore the appointment of Klingelhoefer remained, practically speaking, without any significance. Furthermore the affidavit shows that about the middle of September 1941 Klingelhoefer was transferred to the Group Staff of Einsatzgruppe B as an SD expert and that he took over a newly set up kommando at the end of October, namely, the Advance Kommando Group Staff, which went to Gshatsk.
As Klingelhoefer Document No. 3, Exhibit No. 3, I submit the affidavit of the Defendant Klingelhoefer, dated 17 September 1947. The Tribunal will recall that the Defendant Klingelhoefer already during his direct examination on the witness stand has frequently referred to this affidavit and that he emphasized that he made this affidavit and that he emphasized that he made this affidavit out before the interrogator, Wartenberg at his own request, and that this affidavit also bears the signature of Mr. Wartenberg. In the affidavit, the defendant corrects all those mistakes which were in his first affidavit, dated 1st and 2d of July, 1947, likewise given to Herr Wartenberg. He revokes in this document, which I am submitting, his affidavit of the 1st and 2d of July, 1947, Prosecution Exhibit No. 124 in Document Book III-B of the prosecution and he describes the facts the way that corresponds to his memory after he was able to calm himself. As the contents of this affidavit have already been discussed in their essential points, during the examination of the defendant on the witness stand, I need not go into it further here.
Klingelhoefer Document No. 4 shows the sketches made by the Defendant Klingelhoefer, together with 4a, 4b, and 4c, which I handed to the Tribunal at the time the Defendant Klingelhoefer was examined on the witness stand in order to illustrate his testimony. I do not want to submit those sketches as evidence.
As Klingelhoefer Document No. 5, Exhibit Mo. 4, I submit the affidavit of Ernst Schwandt dated the 1st of December, 1947. Ernst Schwandt was active in the SD Sector Kassel and he was around the Defendant Klingelhoefer during the activities of the latter. Therefore, he describes the position of Klingelhoefer in the SD sector, namely the Cultural Department and he confirms that the Defendant Klingelhoefer was ordered to the Russian assignment at the end of May, 1941, on the basis of an order issued by the RSHA. He adds a brief message to this, for the Defendant Klingelhoefer in reference to his human qualities. Klingelhoefer and I may just add that in the case of Klingelhoefer too, Court II CASE IX I shall ask for a correction of the transcript, via the Secretary General.
day tomorrow so that his defense may be prepared.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Steimle will be excused from attendance all day tomorrow so that his defense may be prepared.
MR. MAYER: That is the end of the presentation, of my documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, the discussion which is taking place here is just to determine in what order the defense counsel will present their document books so that we can know who is coming next.
THE PRESIDENT: Well Mr. Ferencz, we made this announcement: Whoever is ready will proceed and at the first moment that no one is ready you proceed with the rebuttal, and continue to the end of the Rebuttal. Then whatever document books have not yet been presented up to that time may be submitted to the Tribunal, copies, of course, going to the prosecution and it will not be necessary to present them in open court. Those documents will be accepted prima faciedly, unless the prosecution wants to object to any particular one, and then we will decide that question.
MR. FERENCZ: I understand that, Your Honor. It is just who is proceeding now, defense counsel for Schubert and then Ott, and that will be followed by
DR. KOESSL: I was told that Dr. Gawlik wants to be next for Neumann, one volume only, and after that I think that Dr. Stuebinger want to speak for the defendant Dr. Braune. I think that this fills up the afternoon.
MR. FERENCZ: The reason we are asking, Your Honor, is that we do have objections to some of these things and we would like to be ready to interpose our objections at the time the document is offered in this present series.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. FERENCZ: Now, we have several of them. We have Schubert, Ott, Naumann, and Braune, to finish today's hearings and do the defense counsel know who is going to begin tomorrow and who will continue and in what order?
THE PRESIDENT: Well I am afraid we don't have that, Mr. Ferencz. It would be desirable if we did have it, but it isn't here and the only thing I can say is that you would have someone of your office here who would immediately inform the particular prosecution counsel who would be covering that defend to come immediately to the courtroom; or, if you could have someone from your office inquire of defense counsel who would be ready the first thing in the morning.
MR. FERENCZ: Yes, sir, I will.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, you may proceed.
DR. KOESSL (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT OTT): By coincidence, Your Honor, I have a photograph of a so-called Yule Candlestick. This was so often talked about that I think the Tribunal might want to see it.
THE PRESIDENT: I am very much interested to see just what one of those thing looks like. I have heard so much about them This is the candle stick here?
Does one carry that around his neck all the time? No?
And what does one have to do in order to get that ornament?
DR. KOESSL: He had to be in the SS for a certain period of time. Then it was given to him.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. KOESSL: I shall start with Document Book I of the Defendant Ott. This consists of only one document and this document contains several operational reports, dated 22nd of December, 1941, until April, 1942. In the Operation Report No 149, dated 22d of December, 1941, there are figures of executions of Jews. This operation report is also contained in Book III-B of the Prosecution Exhibit 114. I may point out that from the 22d of December 1941 until the 16th of February, 1942, no reports of Einsatzgruppe B are existing. In the following operation reports frequently reports from Einsatzgruppe B are entirely missing.
COURT II CASE IX In some instances events are discussed which doubtlessly lead to executions, but no reports contain figures about these executions until Report No 194, dated 21st of April 1942 which is Prosecution Exhibit 66 and has been submitted in Book II-B. By submitting this Document No. 1, I want to prove that there is a great measure of probability that in the Report No 194 the figures of the preceding months are also included, even thought the report names only the period 6th to 30th of March, 1942. I may point out that on page 45 of the present document book, the report No 184, dated 23d of March, 1942 is contained. To this report there is evidently a wrong page attached. The document itself shows that there are no reports from Einsatzgruppe B. On the last page, 11, executions of Jews and Jewesses in Orel are mentioned. Orel was in the area of Einsatzgruppe B. As after page 6, only incidents in the area of Einsatzgruppe D are mentioned, page 11 must have been attached to this erroneously from another document.
In Prosecution Exhibit No. 54 in Document Book II-A the same report No. 184 is also contained. There the wrong side of No. 11 is not attached. This, too, speaks for the fact that evidently to the documents which I have here, a wrong page has been attached. I offer this Document No. 1 as Exhibit No. 1 for the defendant Ott. 2. This is an affidavit of a certain Pierre Adam, who was an acting Mayor of this place, that is, in the same place where Ott spent some time during the war in France. This French Mayor volunteered to testify for Ott. As the affidavit here on his opinion covers a period of about three to four years. I consider the recommendation of this man as especially valuable in judging the personality of the defendant Ott. I offer this document as Exhibit No. 2.
Document No. 3 is an affidavit by Dr. Ehlich in which the frank manner of making reports by the defendant Ott is testified to, and also the fact that Ott was not at all in agreement with the policy of Gauleiter Burckel in Lorraine, and, that, therefore, Ott had serious disputes with this Gauleiter. I offer this document as Exhibit No. 3.
Document No. 4 is a Situation and Activity Report covering a period from 1 March to 31 March 1942. This Document No. 2 supports the contention of the defense, that in the Prosecution Exhibit No. 66the mentioned figures do not merely refer to the period of 6 March to 30 March 1942; the report also shows the extent of the Partisan danger. I offer this document as Exhibit No. 4.
Document No. 5 includes several reports from the occupied Eastern territories. On 24 July 1942 there is a correction, which is added, according to which the Special-Commando VII-B is commanded by a Dr. Auinger. From this period on Ott is no longer mentioned as the commanding officer of Special-Kommando VII-B at all. Furthermore, the successor of Ott, a Lt. Col. Rabe, is named already on 8 Jan. 1943 as commanding officer of the Commando VII-B , even though Ott did command the commando until the end of January.
This document is another proof as to the reliability, especially about the statement of details. I offer this document as Exhibit No. 5.
Document No. 6 is an affidavit by mybassistant, Meyer. I used this form of evidence in order not to have 1340 pages translated. The affidavit gives the contents of the report from the occupied Eastern territories during that time in which Ott commanded the Commando 9-B, and all other details can be seen in the affidavit. I offer this affidavit as Exhibit No. 6.
As Exhibit No. 7, I offer the graphic chart about the collaboration of the Army Agencies with Special-Commando VII-B. This chart was already discussed in the direct examination of the defendant Ott.
As Exhibit No. 8 I offer Document No. 8. This is a graphic chart of the channels of command which was also discussed during the direct examination of the defendant Ott.
As Exhibit No. 9, I offer the graphic chart about the army area, and a bout the area of Special-Commando VII-B, This chart, too was subject of a discussion during Ott's direct examination. This concludes the presentation of my documents for the defendant Ott. I'll have to submit one other document, a small one, which is still being translated. As Exhibit No. 1, I offer Document No. 1, an affidavit of a man named Heinz, telling about the activity of Schubert in Department IA-4 of the RSHA. According to this affidavit Schubert was only in the auxiliary employed as an assistant, and from the summer of 1940 he was an export in the employment office of the SD. What was an e expert , can be seen from the affidavit of one Wanninger, which is in Document No. 6 in Document Book II of Schubert's. At least he had no authority of decision, and no power of signing. Heinz testified that Schubert reported to the Army after the death of his wife, even though this was prohibited. This application was refused and he was assigned to Einsatzgruppe D without having reported for this.
I offer this as Document No. 1.
Document No. 2 is an affidavit of Kononoff. This man states that Schubert did his best in Augsburg to make it easier for the foreign workers. His willingness to help these Eastern workers, and his sense of justice are especially emphasized. I offer this document as Exhibit No. 2.
Document No. 3 has various things to say about Schubert's activity in the RSHA. This confirms what is stated, that as adjutant of Chief of Office III, Schubert was a member of Office I. I offer this document as Exhibit No. 3.
Document No. 4 is an affidavit being that of a Frauelein Lacker. This lady describes the activity of Schubert in Augsburg. Here she confirms his willingness to help and his sense of justice, which he practiced towards the Eastern workers and the sick people, and which he showed even when it was objected to by the members of the Party. I offer this document as Exhibit No. 4.
Then I come to Schubert's Document Book II. Document No. 5 is describing Schubert's activity within Office III of the RSHA. The affidavit shows clearly that Schubert was still in the stages of acquainting himself with the work of the SD. I offer this document as Exhibit No. 5.
Document No, 6 is an affidavit by Wanninger. It shows that an expert in the RSHA was a very small man, namely it was the lowest position after the clerks and the assistants. That is to say, it was a position for beginners. As an expert Schubert was under the supervision of an assistant research analyst, that is, two stages under the top research analyst. It seems to me important to emphasize this, because the word "expert " is translated with "referent" in Schubert's Document No. 1, whereas, the word "Assistant Research Analyst" is translated with "assistant referent", but the "assistant referent" was a superior to a research analyst. I think it would be best to go into the position of the expert within this graphic chart.
The experts are those people who are listed here in the third place from the bottom with three little houses. Above these experts were these auxiliary research analysts. Then came the research analysts, then the groups, then the offices, and then the main office; under the experts we only see the clerks and the assistants. As far as the translation is concerned, the meaning of this word "expert" becomes best evident.by looking at the chart here, and shows how such a position is to be interpreted. I offer this document No. 6 as Exhibit No. 6.
Document No. 7 is an excerpt from Schubert's military pass. This shows that in the Army during Schubert's two years of military training he was employed as a clerk for one whole year; his qualification as a clerk is expressly mentioned in his discharge paper when he was released. This document also shows that between 1936 and 1938 Schubert served in the 1st company of Armored Signal Battalion No, 39, and not in the SS School, as the Prosecutor assumed during the cross examination. I offer this document as Schubert's Exhibit No. 7. This concludes the submission of those documents translated and I ask that they be admitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you have anything else, to submit, Dr. Koessl?
DR. KOESSL: One document for the defendant Ott that is still being translated, a very short one, otherwise, I have no more.
THE PRESIDENT: I want to thank you particularly for at last satisfying my curiosity as to the Yule Candle Stick. Do you have something, Mr. Walton?
MR. WALTON: I'll promise the Tribunal faithfully I will put in my objections within a minute and a half time.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.
MR. WALTON: The Prosecution objects to the translation of the letter of one Rosa Morale, attached to Document No. 2, of being not material, and only serves to substantiate an affiant Kononoff's statement about the incident of a beating administered to a Russian female worker in the Martin Schmittner's plant, in the occurrence of which Schubert was not involved.
of the affidavit the affiant has no knowledge of the defendant's assignment in Russia, and gives a partial account of his assignment in Germany, irrelevant and immaterial to the issued in the case.
THE PRESIDENT: You win. The Tribunal will be in recess fifteen minutes.
The MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess fifteen minutes.
(Recess)