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)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. KOESSL: Dr. Koessl for the defendants Ott and Schubert. mention that Schubert naturally has been charged with being a member of an organization declared to be criminal. This is evidenced by the affidavit Shark and Kononoff. With this one could object to the the objection of the prosecution. The supplement of the affidavit Konoff is covered by the affidavit itself, but it is not so essential or so important that I insist on this supplement being admitted. I would waive, in fact, the submission of the supplement.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. KOESSL: I don't know whether your Honor and the judges will accept the documents which are offered.
THE PRESIDENT: We are making it a rule now not to decide this question, but we will decide it at the end. But we had indicated a number of times that the policy of the Tribunal is to be rather liberal in the acceptance of documents, and while, of course, we will weigh the objections made by the prosecution, should there be any doubt certainly we will resolve it always in favor of receiving the documents.
DR. KOESSL: Yes. Then concerning documents which I would now like to submit to the prosecution, herewith I am doing so. Correction, to the Secretary General.
MR. WALTON: Can the prosecution take the last statement from the Tribunal that they will accept all -
THE PRESIDENT: No we have said that there is a doubt, where it could be resolved either way, we will always resolve the doubt in favor of the defendant, and that is true in accordance with AngleAmerican procedure. Where, of course, you establish beyond the pre_ adventure of a doubt that your objection is in order naturally the document will then not he received.
MR. WALTON: I understood it that the Tribunal said that where there is any doubt about the admission of a document -
THE PRESIDENT: No, we meant in weighing the arguments on either side as to whether a document should be received where the prosecution very obviously prevails the document will not be received, but if both sides are evenly balanced as to whether a document should or should not be received, then the prosecution has failed to meet the burden and in that event the document would be received?
MR. WALTON: I see. Yes.
DR. GAWLIK: Gawlik for the defendants Naumann and Seibert. documents for Naumann and Seibert. However, I have just found out that there is only one document book, which is Document Book I, for Naumann, which has been translated, and I would, therefore, like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that this document book, the documents for Naumann, I submitted to the translation section for translation at the same time as the Seibert book. I could not say exactly now, but I believe it must have been around about the 18th of December. That is almost four weeks now. I shall reserve the right to name the exact date. I do not know whether I am informed correctly that after the beginning of the rebuttal the documents may not be submitted any longer.
THE PRESIDENT: You are incorrectly informed. Documents may be submitted, may be submitted up to and including the time of the summations, but what we do say is that if they are not ready until after the rebuttal begins, then it will be not necessary to present them in open court so long as copies are submitted to the prosecution. Then if the prosecution does not object the documents will be accepted. If the prosecution does object then we will hear the objection and hear defense counsel on that particular issue and then the decision will be made so that you will in no way be prejudiced because of any delay in the translation section.
DR. GAWLIK: Well, but your Honor, I think it is necessary, however, that the documents should be submitted in open court, but that is being made impossible by the fact that the translation department isn't ready. We have no influence whatever on the translation section. If we submit them, as we did, weeks ago, and they are not translated by now, that cannot have the result that we cannot submit them in open court. After all, there are explanations to be made to each single document which we can't then make known to the Tribunal. Therefore, I would ask the Tribunal reveiw this ruling. please. For instance, the case of the defendant Seibert whom I represent is typical. I have submitted the document book in fact a month ago. The rebuttal will begin tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, and I have no possibility to submit the documents in open court. It is not my fault. It is nobody's fault in fact. I recognize the fact that the translation section has to cope with all this work and they are doing everything in their power, but those are technical difficulties.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Gawlik, don't be concerned about it. I am sure that the question will be resolved in a way which will be satisfactory to all concerned. For the moment present what you have ready.
MR. WALTON: Your Honor, the prosecution hasn't seen any document book on Seibert and we do respectfully submit that we would like to sec them. Now he is ready with document books on Seibert, so when you spoke to him to present what he has ready -
THE PRESIDENT: I assumed that when he said he was ready that he was ready to the effect that everybody had been served.
MR.WALTON: No sir, the prosecution hasn't been served on Seibert yet.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you have ready to which the prosecution will have no objection to your submitting immediately? Do you have anything ready that you can start on now?
DR. GAWLIK: I was informed that one document book of Naumann book, has been translated.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, do you have it, do you have it?
MR. WALTON: Yes, we have the translation of it.
THE PRESIDENT: Then why do you say you were informed. Do you have it in your possession?
DR. GAWLIK: No, I was told that it has been submitted to the Tribunal one document book Naumann.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, proceed with Naumann.
DR. GAWLIK: As Document Naumann No. 1. I have already submitted Document Naumann No. 1. which is a report of events, No. 186, dated the 27 March 1942. It is Document NO_3236. So far I have only given an identification number to this document in Naumann's direct examination on the witness stand. Now I am going to give an exhibit number to this document. It is Naumann No. 1. It is contained in Document Book Naumann No. I on Pages 1 to 2. of the Einsatzgruppe B was partisan warfare and that all the forces in the Einsatzgruppe B were occupied mainly with partisan combat. In this document it says, on the 8th of March 1942 the Supreme Commander of the R*ar Army Territory held discussions during which the carrying out of an extensive operation of the Wehrmacht was discussed in order to fight partisans around Bryansk or in the vicinity of Bryansk. From the next paragraph it becomes evident that for this operation Einsatzgruppe B was assigned and was in fact assigned on directives of the Supreme Commander of the Rear Army Territory.
I now read from Paragraph 2 just one sentence. "Einsatzgruppe B on the directives of the commander of the Bear Army Territory have to create the prerequisits for the carrying out of the operations." The next sentence refers to the activity of the Einsatzkommandos 9 and 7a. From the next paragraph it becomes evident that Einsatzgruppe B acutally carried out this operation. I quote the first sentence. "The Supreme Commander of the Rear Army Territory center, General von Schenkendorff, spoke at the beginning of the discussion and thanked the Einsatzgruppe for the tasks carried out and for their success which was responsible largely for the success of the Wehrmacht."
He pointed out that as far as -
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Gawlik, it isn't necessary to keep reading form it. Now you have given us a fairly good idea of what this report covers. If you are going to read each paragraph and then comment on it it becomes in the nature of an argumentation. You are merely presenting documents now. A document is like a witness. It is before the court. We have to read this.
DR. GAWLIK: I only wanted to read the sentences to which I want to draw the particular attention of the Tribunal.
As next document I submit Document Naumann No. 8 as Exhibit Naumann No. 2. I beg your pardon, your Honor, it is Document Naumann No. 2 as Exhibit No. 2.
THE PRESIDENT: Why not let's have the three exhibits so that we won't waste time going through the same process with each different exhibit? You have 2, 3 and 4 which are in the nature of exhibits, don't you?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Present them all now.
DR. GAWLIK: Simultaneously, the Document Naumann No. 3 as Exhibit No. 3. The next document, Naumann No. 4, which is listed in the Doc. Book, I shall not submit, your Honor, As to Document Naumann No. 2 , Exhibit No. 2, I want to comment the following. I have submitted this document in order to point to the difficulties between the various garrisons. This map shows all the individual garrisons of the group staffs of the kommandos and the subkomma ndos. The chart has been made according to a map of the scale 1 to 1,000,000. The garrison of the group staff is marked with a little square. The garrisons of the kommandos have been marked with a fat dot, and the garrisons of the subkommandos with a little circle. The channel of command between the group staff and the kommandos is marked with a straight line, and between the kommandos and the subkommandos with a dotted line.
The next document, Naumann No. 3, Exhibit Naumann No. 3 I have submitted in order to prove the correctness of the line of command of the group staff of the Einsatzkommandos and of the Special Kommandos. You will see, your Honors, in the upper part a double line. At the top of this line are the agencies in Berlin. Underneath this double lines there are the agencies in the territory of Russia. In the Russian territory marked in the upper part, are the agencies issuing the order, in the lower part the agencies are marked carrying out the orders. Another line has been put in which goes straight down. This line separates the agencies in the Rear Army Territory from those in the Army frontal area. Now, here we have the left side which shows the agencies in the Rear Army Territory and on the right side those in the Army frontal area. With this drawing I want to prove that first of all the Commander in chief center had all the executive power in the territory Russia and that he was also the only one who kept up the immediate connection with Hitler. From the chart, the line of command of the Einsatzgruppe B becomes farther evident. Einsatzgruppe B was first of all subordinate to the chief of the Security Police and the SD. Secondly, it was subordinate to the Army Group Center.
Third, it was subordinate to the Commander in Chief of the Rear Army territory, and then finally -
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Gawlik, you are in effect testifying here now. That was up to the defendant Naumann to explain.
DR. GAWLIK: I am only explaining the chart, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, did the defendant explain this on the stand?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, he testified to this.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, well then, it is in the record and it isn't necessary to go into all that again. This is to illustrate what the defendant has already testified to, and it is here before us. Now, there is no need for you to point out what each line points to. We have this.
DR. GAWLIK: If the Tribunal is of the opinion that this is not required, I shall discontinue. I only wanted to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the line of command, as they become evident from this chart in order to clarify this chart, to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if the defendant has already indicated what the line of command was here and then we will have this before us as we review the transcript that will be enough. Your telling us won't add too much because we have it from the defendant already.
DR. GAWLIK: I was only thinking that the chart with these many lines are not very evident at eh moment when you look at it and are a bit confusing so that if you have no explanation of what the individual lines might mean, especially the channel of command and the relationship of the various special kommandos to each other, aren't very obvious.
THE PRESIDENT: While these lines are helpful, I will confess that I understand more thoroughly an oral description of the line of command more easily than the sketch, and the defendant has already explained that from the witness stand. This is only a supplementary explanation.
DR. GAWLIK: As my next document, I submit Document Naumann No. 5 as Exhibit Naumann No. 4. It is an affidavit by Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski concerning Naumann's military assignment in partisan warfare and his decoration with EK 1, with the iron cross first class.
It is on pages 3 and 4 of the document book. This also is meant to prove that the activity of Naumann in Einsatzgruppe B was mainly that of warfare with partisans. Also the difficulties become evident from this document, the difficult situation, in fact, which was caused by the partisans in the territory of the Einsatzgruppe B. Also from Paragraph 2 the line of command becomes evident in which Naumann was. Then the document shows that Naumann actually personally took part in the warfare against partisans.
I draw the attention of the Tribunal especially to the sentence: "For this merit and for braveness General von Schenkendorff awarded him the iron cross first class." From this it becomes evident that Naumann received the iron cross first class for the reason that he earned it as a soldier in active service while participating in warfare against partisans. absolutely necessary in order to get a true judgment of Naumann's actions in Russia, to submit evidence concerning his attitude and behavior as the commander of the Security Police and SD in Holland. The next three documents refer to this. It is only a part of the evidence material which I shall submit. The further evidence material is in Document Book II which has not yet been submitted to the Tribunal in its translation. Now I submit the Document, Naumann No. 6, as Exhibit no. 5. It is in Document Book Naumann No. 1, pages 5 to 6.
This is an affidavit by Mrs. Lily Van der Schalk. I point out to the Tribunal the fact that this is a Dutch citizen. From the document can be seen that Naumann, during the time of his assignment as Commander in Chief in Holland, actively supported and helped Jews and he actually achieved a success by having Jews released from concentration camps, for instance, Auschwitz. I draw the attention of the Tribunal to another paragraph, the next one, where the affiant makes statements concerning the attitude of Naumann, he had about the Jews. I consider this affidavit and the following affidavits of these Dutchmen as very important for the evidence and for judging the acts which he is charged with by the Prosecution during his assignment in Russia. Number 6. It is an affidavit by the same Frau Lily van der Schalk of 27th October. From this document it becomes evident that Naumann personally aided 250 Dutch hostages and brought about the release of the largest part of these hostages. vit by Mrs. Ilse Leembruggen von Lieben, of 28th of November 1947. Document Naumann Number 8, which I shall give the Exhibit Number Naumann Number 7. It is in Document Book Naumann Number I, page 8. I draw the special attention of the Tribunal concerning this affidavit, to the fact that this is an affidavit made out by a Jewess, as becomes evident from the affidavit itself; this Jewess, who had been in a concentration camp, was released as a result of the intervention on the part of Naumann. which is the only one that has been translated.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Dr. Gawlik. Dr. Mayer, are you ready?
I want to say, Dr. Mayer, that I am very sorry that you had to wait around all day. On two occasions we were about to call you and at that moment you just happened to step out.
DR. STUEBINGER: Stuebbinger for Braune. I would like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stuebbinger, of course. We had a debate here as to whether your name was Mayer or not and two of us said you were Mayer and three said no. Three won.
DR. STUEBBINGER: On behalf of my colleague, Dr. Mayer, I would like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that I shall submit a trial brief for my client Dr. Braune. Just now I found out during the recess that Document Book II has now also been submitted in English, but only to the interpreters. Mr. Walton hasn't received it yet. I myself am prepared to submit Document Book II as well, after I have concluded Document Book I. I don't know whether there is any objection on the part of the Prosecution to this.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there anyone from the Prosecution ready to reply to that?
MR. WALTON: Your Honor, we are ready to offer our objections to certain documents as contained in Document Book I, but not having received a copy of Document Book II -- If I got it tonight I would be ready in the morning, but I have never laid my eyes on it.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, what do you have ready now to present , Dr. Stuebbinger?
DR. STUEBBINGER: Document Book II -- Document Book I has been submitted in its translation some time ago. Document Book II has been handed to the interpreters.
THE PRESIDENT: Why don't you proceed with Number I now?
DR. STUEBBINGER: I only asked when I conclude Document Book I, whether I can start with Document Book II. That will probably not be possible them. Document Book Numb er I contains affidavits, Documents 1 to 6 concerning the activity of the defendant as the Reich Student Leader and as leader of the academical exchange service in the years 1943 to 1944. Documents 7 to 28 concern the activity of Dr. Braune as Commander of the Security Police and SD in Oslo in the year 1945.