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.
Documents 29 and 30 contain character testimonies. and the German document books. The document numbers and the exhibit numbers correspond. client with intolerance and arrogance and thus with contempt of human lives and corruptness of human reasoning. As their reasons they give the activities of the defendants in the Eastern campaign. Under which conditions Braune acted on this occasion I proved when he was a witness on the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: May I interrupt a second, please.
Mr. Walton, the Tribunal also has Document Book II, so we would suggest that you send to your office to see if that book is there.
MR. WALTON: Very well, Your Honor.
MR. STUEBBINGER: Under what conditions Dr. Braune acted in the Eastern campaign, I proved when he was here on the witness stand . With the submission of the affidavits, I shall prove how Dr. Braune actually acted in word and deed when he was not immediately bound to the orders of his Chief of State, but when he h ad the possibility to ask higher authorities for support. They prove that criminal and nonsensical orders, he did not carry out unconditionally. But with the whole strength of his personality he resisted such orders. In this way he succeeded, in two cases, to bring about decisions on the part of the Chief of State which can be led back to his own initiative. He thus saved the lives of numerous people and valuable property from being destroyed.
I shall now deal in Document Book I, with the factor of "students' leadership". Document 1, Exhibit 1, is an affidavit by Irmgard Grotjahn, former secretary of Braune, dated 9th of October 1947. It is on page 1 Through a law of the French Government, numerous French students during the years 1943 and 1944 had been drafted to Germany for work.
Braune's secretary, confirmed here that he, as the man in charge of the Reich Student Leadership and as the leader of the German Exchange Academic System, he facilitated matters for these French students whenever he was able to do so. He gave them aid and support, took care that the places of work were improved; he gave them lectures and he had books and magazines given to them, and m ade it possible for them to participate in cultural performances and finally he brought about their release and made it possible for them to take up their studies again. states that Braune, during the activity as Student Leader in 1943, directed a protest letter to the National Student Leader in which he protested against the arrest of about 700 Norwegian students and therefore brought about a Fuehrer decree and the reprimand at the time of the Reich Commissioner Terboven. In this connection, I would like to point to Document Number 12, which I shall introduce at the proper time, from which it also becomes evident that Dr. Braune supported the release of a thousand Norwegian students who on the occasion of the arson of the Oslo University -- had been arrested. Grotjahn, dated 15 Octob er 1947. The Reich Propaganda Ministry had put a fund of a quarter of a million marks at the disposal of the Reich Student Leadership. He, therefore, tried to influence its office politically by asking for reports concerning the use of this money. Dr. Braune prevented this and rather went without the money put at the disposal by the Propaganda Ministry. the 17th September 1947, on page 6. From this it becomes evident that Braune in numerous discussions and speeches professed himself to the European association with mutual fate and that he objected very strongly to the German policy and used his influence concerning the recognition of sovereignty of all nations.
Document No. 5, Exhibit 5 is an affidavit by Friedrich Sipmann, Department Chief in the Reich Students' Leadership Department, dated 10th of September, 1947. It is on page 8. Sipmann herewith confirms that at meetings of students Braune spoke harshly against the German foreign policy, criticized it , demanded a constructive plan for the reorganization of Europe and that he was an opponent to all power politics and to the suppression of national characteristics; he wanted respect between nation and nationals and the voluntary cooperation of all European nations.
Document No. 6, Exhibit 6, the affidavit of Dr. Reinhold Baessler dated the 1st of October, 1947, is on page 10. Baessler was a department chief in the Students' Leadership. From this document it becomes evident that Braune, during his activity in the German Students' organization at meetings and conferences criticized most severely the National Socialist practice. I may here quote a few short passages on page 10, paragraph 2:
"Though an old Party member, he was one of the harshest critics of practical National Socialism among whom I met him in the Party."
At the end of paragraph 3 it says, I quote:
"He quite openly said that the Party must go, if it no longer bore the will and strength for reform."
Paragraph 4:
"He was convinced that the time was ripe for a reconciliation of Europe's old national conflicts, and that only a united Europe could at length withstand the Red danger from the East."
I now come to Section Norway. This shows Braune's conduct and attitude as the Commander of the Security Police and SD in the decisive last months of the war. documents.
Document No. 7, Exhibit No. 7, is an excerpt from a Norwegian newspaper with Braune's picture and a proclamation to the public to report any cases of illtreatment, Braune might have been guilty of, in his capacity as Commanding Officer of the Security Police and SD in Oslo.
the next to the last paragraph. It should not say, "As they were carried out according to the directives", but it should say, "Insofar as they were asked for in the directives". occasions, no informations were received concerning this. and 9, which are also Exhibits 8 and 9. As these documents show, the proceedings had to be discontinued.
Then the next affidavit is an affidavit by Dr. Jungbluth, the German assistant attorney for Germans who were charged in Norway. From this it becomes evident that after the proceedings had been discontinued, Dr. Braune on the 19th of July, 1946, was taken to the German Internment Camp Kiel.
Document No. 9, Exhibit No. 9, is an affidavit by Dr. Keller, Dr. Hans Keller, Departmental Chief in the Office of the Supreme Commander of the Security Police and the SD in Norway, which also confirm the discontinuance of the proceedings.
Documents No. 10 to 12, which are submitted as Exhibits 10 to 12, show Braune as a harsh adversary and opponent of the policy on the part of Reich Commissar Terboven. From the affidavit of Georg Wolff, it becomes evident that Braune rejected the policy as unbearable as exercised by Reich Commissar Terboven and was determined to prevent it in his district by all means, even if such procedure should lead to his being transferred. Hans Keller. In which it is confirmed that Braune was against the activity of Terboven concerning police executives, and that he prevented mass arrests and also prevented the carrying out of extensive activities and that currently he himself ordered releases to be carried out and through this he came into dispute with his superior officer.
Document No. 12, Exhibit 12, is an affidavit by Herbert Not of the 12th of September 1947, it confirms, as I have said before, that Braune objected to the power politics of Terboven and that he advocated the release of the 1,000 students arrested in connection with the arson of the University of Oslo.
Documents No. 13 to 16 prove that Dr. Braune was an opponent of the taking of hostages and that in this also the advocated that the present orders be rescinded. department chief of Braune. He confirms that Dr. Braune instructed the offices subordinated to him in the Oslo district not to arrest any hostages because of escapes to Sweden.
Document No. 14, Exhibit 14, is an affidavit by Irmgard Grotjahn, which confirms that Dr. Braune issued written orders to his subordinates not to arrest any hostages in spite of existing orders to the contrary.
Document No. 15, Exhibit 15, an affidavit by Herbert Not, also shows the fact that Braune was an opponent to the taking of hostages and confirms that Braune himself advocated that the present directives be rescinded.
Document No. 16, Exhibit 16, the affidavit by Hans Keller of the 15th of September 1947, confirms the fact that Braune objected to the hostage order of the commander in chief, Fehlis, and regarded it as incompatible and brought about the rescinding of this order.
From Document No. 17, Exhibit 17, an affidavit by Georg Wolff, dated 10th of September, 1947, it becomes evident that Braune had numerous release applications forwarded to him by his departmental chiefs in Oslo and approved them. He also brought about the release of the Norwegian Prime Minister Gerhardsen. He further had a release proposition drawn up for the release of 1300-1400 prisoners, affected the approval of this plan and thus achieves in this way hundreds of releases.
Document No. 18, Exhibit 18, an affidavit by Irmgard Grotjahn of the 29th of August, 1947. The secretary of Braune herewith confirms that Braune, during his activity as Commander of the Security Police in Oslo, had all applications for release submitted directly to him and received personally all applicants, who, even as adversaries, state their sympathy for, and confidence in, Braune. graph 2:
"I myself was repeatedly told by visitors that they had imagined a Security Police Commander to be quite different, and that they had been surprised to find a man about whom they felt that his intentions were absolutely honest, and although he was actually their opponent, he was a person to whom they had to extend their sympathy and trust."
Document No. 19 , Exhibit 19, is an affidavit of Hans Keller, dated 15th of September, 1947. From this it becomes evident that Braune even had applications which were meant for his superior office sent to his office and on his own authority decreed releases and frequently exceeded his own authority.
Document No. 20, Exhibit 20, an affidavit by Herbert Not, dated 12th of September 1947, confirms that Braune currently decreed numerous releases, proposed to his superior office more than 1,000 releases, which were approved and effected to a large extent. It also shows that Braune was opposed to large-scale operations and that he limited arrests to those persons whose guilt was proven.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you think we might suspend at this point, Dr. Stuebbinger?
DR. STUEBBINGER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I might inquire if we can get any enlightenment on the order of presentation tomorrow morning. Can anyone tell us who will be ready tomorrow morning after Dr. Stuebbinger finishes?
DR. WIESSMATH: Assistant of Dr. Schwarz for the defendant Jost, Your Honor, we intend to submit four document books for the defendant Jost. Of these four two have been translated. These two document book can be submitted tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Is there anyone else who can tell us about other books to be presented?
DR. KRAUSE (Attorney for the defendant Haensch): Your Honor, I intend to introduce two document books tomorrow. A third document book is still in the Translation Section and a fourth book is just about completed.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you will be ready to go on after Dr. Wiessmath, who will present books for Jost.
DR. KRAUSE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the answer will be "yes" anyway. The Tribunal will be in recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 16 January 1948, at 0930 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please dinf their seats. Tribunal.
DR. LINCK: Linck for the defendant Ruehl. Your Honor, may I make the announcement now, if it is agreeable to the Tribunal, that I shall be prepared after the lunch recess to submit my documents and that my colleague, Dr. Lummert, would like to be the next one. I assume that the time before lunch has already been filled up, so that there will be no difficulty in my submitting my documents after lunch. The prosecution has been informed about it, and they agree.
PRESIDENT: If we keep going continuously until noontime, what you say can be done easily, but should there be any lull, as we indicated before, we will immediately proceed with the rebuttal, so you will just have to take that chance, Dr. Linck. If you are assured with conversation with your colleagues that there will be a continuous flow of documents until noon, then you can go about with a free and happy heart until 1:45, but if your colleagues cannot assure you of that, you had better keep one foot within the doorway.
DR. LINCK: All right, Your Honor.
PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. STUEBINGER: May I please proceed, Your Honor? We concluded yesterday Document Number 20.
Grotjahn, of the 4th of September 1947. It is on page 34. It proves that based on the operations for the release of prisoners which Braune initiated, a number of old men and woman, diseased people, hostages, those who distributed pamphlets and leaflets, and a lot of those people who listedned to the English radio stations were released. out of a large-scale actions because, he could not reconcile it with his feeling for justice. Hans Keller, of the 15th of September 1947. Keller herewith confirms immediately took steps against the mass actions against the Norwegian resistance movement, and that he was able to prevent those. When the Reich Commissar, Terboven ordered extensive retaliation measure against Oslo and asked that about 60 Norwegians should be shot and more than 1,000 huts should be burned, Braune resisted this action. He requested a decision by the Fuehrer and, therefore, he succeeded in having Hitler forbid the operation. Therefore, it was Braune's doing that numerous Norwegians were saved and valuable property was saved from destruction. Grotjahn of the 4th of September 1947. It is on page 37. By order of Terboven in the program of a retaliation measure in the Oslo sector, a number of innocent Norwegians were to be shot and a number of huts were to be burned. From this document it becomes evident that Dr. Braune forced the Fuehrer decision and that he resisted this action. the 10th of September, 1947.