from a newspaper. It is hearsay, incompetent evidence in its present form and is irrelevant and immaterialy. excerpt from an Austrian newspaper, and further objects to Document 39, being a transcript -
THE PRESIDENT: Not submitted, Mr. Walton.
MR. WALTON: Sorry.
THE PRESIDENT: When Mr. Walton starts to object, he objects to everything, whether it is introduced or not.
MR. WALTON: Like Will Rogers, your Honor, I only know what I read in my document books. is clearly hearsay evidence, since the affiant does not testify to anything within her personal knowledge. 46, 47, 48 -
THE PRESIDENT: The defense counsel is missing a great opportunity. Mr. Walton did not object to the submission of Documents 43 and 43a and you haven't even presented them, so here is your chance to put them in.
MR. WALTON: If he does, I may do so in rebuttal, Sir. In my humble opinion they help my side of the case.
48? There is no objection to 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, but the prosecution does object to 53 for the same reason that this is a clipping from a newspaper. It is incompetent evidence and certainly irrelevant and hearsay on the part of the unknown author of the article. 55, since it wasn't offered. offer of the Supplement to Document II, the same being the Schilke affidavit wherein this affiant testifies or deposes concerning crimes against ethnic Germans by Russians.
The Tribunal has also in its order of 9 October 1947 ruled on this type of evidence and on an undated order which was issued from the Tribunal about the same time it did the prosecution the honor of quoting a part of its brief or its objection that if the Russians committed a host of crimes over and over again, such evidence is immaterial as to the issues of the guilt or innocence of the defendants who are German nationals, having committed crimes. This is the same type of evidence and the prosecution therefore objects to it.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will take under advisement all those objections.
DR. STUEBINGER: I havennothing to say, your Honor.
DR. WIESMATH: Assistant of Dr. Schwarz for the Defendant Jost. May I now being with submitting the documents for the Defendant Jost? As an introduction, I would like to state that I intend just to indicate the content of the documents in a few words, since their probative value will be discussed and evaluated afterwards in the trial brief.
I may begin with Document Book No. I. I offer as Jost Exhibit No. 1the affidavit of Arthur Deeken. It is found on pages 1 to 3 of the Document Book Jost I. Contents: Evaluation of Jost's character and political attitude As Exhibit No. 2, Jost Document J-2 affidavit of Heinrich Eissfelder of 4 October 1947.
It includes pages 4 to 7 of Document Book I. It concerns Jost's character and personal action on behalf of political opponents and persecuted Jews.
Jost Exhibit No. 3 is Document J-3, affidavit of Edgar Thomashausen of 4 October 1947, pages 8 to and including 17. Contents Jost's character, style of loving, and support of the Thomashausen family in difficulties resulting from the fact that Frau Thomashausen is a Jewess.
As exhibit No. 4, I offer document J-4 on pages 18 through 20, an affidavit of Dr. Georg Leibrandt of 13 October 1947. Content: Conference with Rosenberg in Berlin, Jost's opposition to the shooting of Jews and attempts to cause Rosenberg to prevent the shooting of Jews.
fact that Jost attempted to appropch Rosenberg about this after he had already been relieved from his Eastern assignment.
passages from this affidavit. On page 18 - -
MR. GLANCY: If Your Honor please, the Prosecution has no objection whatsoever to this document; however, it feels it is more or less cumulative to take the Tribunal's time in reading this document now in its fullness, because the defense has just stated that they intend to cover all this material in their summary brief.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Weismath, unless you intend to read merely one sentence, or a very very short quotation, it would not be necessary to dwell on it at length, would it?
DR. WEISMATH: No, Your Honor, it was merely my intention to read from page 18 of the document book the very first sentence of the last paragraph and on page 19, the last two paragraphs.
THE PRESIDENT: You may read them if it is just a short excerpt.
DR. WEISMATH: I shall give a short synopsis of the contents. The discussion took place in Berlin at the end of November in 1942. Jost spoke very generally about the happenings during the Summer in the East, and pointed out that as for the tremendous events taking place in the East, not the individual SS-man was responsible but only the highest authorities, who had decreed these orders. Jost then pointed out that he himself objected to carrying out such orders. Finally, he attempted to cause Rosenberg either to prevent or to limit the execution measures.
THE PRESIDENT: What page does that appear on in English?
MR. GLANCY: He is giving us a synopsis, but I would like to correct the record, sofar as the English copy is concerned, it states that in November 1943 a conference took place, a year after Jost returned from the Einsatzgruppe.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. WEISMATH: As Exhibit No. 5 I offer document J-5. This is an affidavit of Eugen Faulhaber of 13 October 1947. It includes pages 21 to 22 of the Document Book I. Contents: the number of Jews in the Wil*a Ghetto after Jost's removal as Chief of Einsatzgruppe A, and Commander of the SIPO and SD Ostland in August 1942.
As Jost Exhibit No. 6, there appears document No. J-6, affidavit of Richard Hildebrandt of 14 October 1947 pages 23-25 Contents: Jost's position in February 1944. Jost's refusal to become Commander of the SIPO and SD in the Nilolajew area, Himmler's attitude towards Jost. Jost's induction into Waffen-SS.
As Jost Exhibit No. 6 is document J-7, affidavit of Karl Hennicke of 14 October 1947, from page 26 through page 29. Contents: Jost's opinion on the problem of the executive and his reaction on receiving the order appointing him Chief of Einsatzgruppe-A and Commander of the SIPO and SD Ostland. Jost's intention to revoke this appointment, I just see I made a mistake. Jost Document No. 7 should bear exhibit No. 7.
As further document I offer Document J-8, affidavit of D. Visvalds Sanders of 15 October 1947, pages 30 and 31. Contents: Jost's attitude towards National Socialism and towards the Latvian people.
As Exhibit No. 9 1 offer Document J-9, pages 32 to 35, affidavit of Gottlieb Berger of 15 October 1947. Contents: Jost's quarrel with the Chief of Office IV, Reich Main Security Office. His attitude to Himmler. Himmler's order to draft Jest into the Waffen-SS meant as a punative measure. Kaltenbrunner' s circular letter. Position of White Ruthenia.
As Exhibit No. 9, Document J-10 pages 36-41, affidavit of Dr. Werner Best, of 16 October 1947, contents: Jost's character, his leaving of the Hesse Police Service, his entering the SD, his work in the SD, reasons why Jost left the SD. Jost's opposition to the shooting of Jews, and Kaltenbrunner's evaluation of Jost.
As Exhibit No. 11, the Document J-11, affidavit of Karl Wolff of 27 October 1947, pages 42 and 43, contents: Characterization of Jost. of 29 October 1947, pages 44 to 46. Contents: Jost suspected of having supported Goerdeler.
As Exhibit No. 13 I offer document J-13, affidavit of Gottfried Klingemaan of 30 October 1947, pages 47 and 48. Contents: Characterization of Jost as Chief of Office VI, Reich Main Security Office.
As Exhibit No. 14 I offer J-41, affidavit of Gottfried Klingemann, of 31 October 1947, pages 49 to 51, contents: Jost's refusal to liquidate the inmates of the Ljuban mental institution.
As Jost Exhibit No. 15, document J-15, affidavit of Georg Jedicke of 3 November 1947, pages 52 to 54, contents: Jost's character, refusal of Lohse's demand to clear the Ostland of Jews. of Document Book No. I, and I shall go to Document Book No. II.
I furthermore offer as Exhibit No. 16, Document J-16, affidavit of Hermina Nyhoegen, pages 1 and 2 of Document Book II, dated 23 October 1947. At this point I may point out that the statement of this affiant refers to matters which she only knows from hearsay, namely, the report by her husband who was an adjutant of the defendant Jost, but the defense considered it necessary to introduce this document as a direct proof, as it is not possible to talk to the husband and to have him testify,as he is probably a prisoner of war of the Russians at the moment, and, therefore, can not be taken to Nurnberg.
As Exhibit No. 17 I offer J-17, affidavit of Friedrich Vollheim, 4 November 1947, pages 3 to 5 of the Document Book II. Contents: Tasks of Office VI of Reich Main Security Office. No connection between Offices IV and VI. Jost's rejection of Mueller's influence on Office VI.
As Jost Exhibit No. 18. Document J-18, affidavit of Wilhelm Stuckart, dated 6 November 1947, pages 6 and 7 of Vol. II, Contents: Jost's character. His rejection of the police state tendencies of Heydrich.
As Exhibit No. 19 Document J-19, affidavit of Max Everwien, 6 November 1947, pages 8 to 11 of the document book. Contents: Jost's character, his attitude on the Jewish question, his anti-Communistic attitude, Jost's support of Everwein. His efforts to disconnect himself from Himmler.
As Exhibit No. 20 Document J-20, affidavit of Hans Hermann Rommers, pages 12 and 13 of Vol.II, dated 14 November 1947. Contents: Activity of Krasnowardeisk Kommando, no executions in the period from May until the period beginning of August, 1942. No use of gas wagon, judgment of Jost by Oplaender.
As Exhibit No. 21 Document J-21, affidavit of Wilhelm Waneck, dated 17 November 1947, pages 14-19 of Vol. II. Contents: Activity, tasks and organization of Office VI of the Reich Main Security Office. No organizational, official, or personal connection with Office IV of the Reich Main Security Office. Differences of Jost with Mueller and Heydrich. Judgment of Jost. Thomashausen case.
As Exhibit No. 22 Document J-22, affidavit of Hjalmar Mae, dated 17 November 1947 pages 20 and 21, contents: Jost's attitude on Estonia, his efforts to quit the police service.
As Exhibit No. 23 Document J-23, affidavit of Valentin Degen dated 18th November 1947, page 22 to 24, contents: Jost's assistance to Rev. Valentin Degen.
As Exhibit No. 24 Document J-24, an original letter from Adam Sitz to Rev. Degen, dated 6 November 1947, page 25 of Vol II, contents: Jost's assistance to Rev. Valentin Degen.
As Exhibit No. 25, Document J-25, affidavit of Dr Franz Riedweg, 25 November 1947 pages 26 and 27 of the second volume. Contents: Jost's human attitude and judgment by subordinates, his differences with Heydrich and Himmler because Jost did not obey orders blindly. which have already been received in the English translation. I would ask The Tribunal to allow me to submit the Volumes 3 and 4 at a later time, as soon as they have been translated.
Jost as I want to prepare my final plea.
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse him when?
DR WEISMATH: This afternoon, Your Honor, I would like him to come to Room 57 if that is possible.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Jost will be excused from attendance in court this afternoon and will be conducted to Room 57.
MR. GLANCY: If Your Honor please, this might come as a bit of a shock to the defense and it might expose me to be expelled from the league of conscientious objectors at this time, but I have no objection to the documents offered.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Mr. Glancy, that will be recorded.
DR. RIEDIGER: Dr. Riediger for the defendant Haensch. Your Honor, may I now begin with the submission of my documents. Sofar I can only introduce documents in Volumes I and II, because the translation department has only got that far at the moment. I may now refer to Book I, and I offer on page 1 as Exhibit No. 5 Document No. 1. It is the affidavit of Else Nevelling of 20 October 1947. The married couples of Nevelling and Haensch inhabited the same house in Berlin - Zehlendorf. Mrs. Nevelling testifies that the defendant went to the East only as late as February 1942, and she gives the reason for this.
On page a and on page 2-A is Exhibit No. 6. This is Document No. 2, affidavit of Herbert Dassler of the 23 October 1947. Dassler testifies that the defendant had tried to get acquainted with him in order to find a way out of the RSHA with his help. On 25 January 1942, the defendant had attended his birthday celebration and about a fortnight later he had been his guest again.
On page 3 and page 4 as Exhibit No. 7 is Document No. 3. It is the affidavit of Lisa Krueger-Martius of 29 September 1942. She is the wife of a former school comrade of the defendant, and she confirms the visits with Dassler at the end of January and in February 1942, and, furthermore, the attempts of the defendant to leave the RSHA.
On pages 5 and 6 is Exhibit No. 8, Document No. 4, affidavit of Elizabeth-Charlotte Ebbinghaus, dated 23 October 1947, giving the characteristics of the defendant, especially his ideals and attitude, and his experience as assessor in Doebeln; his dissatisfaction with the service in the RSHA and especially she gives the date of his leaving for the East as 26 February 1942.
On pages 7 and 7-A is Exhibit No. 9, Document No. 5. Affidavit of Maria Krueger-Martius nee Brust, dated 16 October 1947, she is the sisterin-law of the woman we mentioned before who used to live in Prague, and she states that Haensch during the time of his assignment in the East, approximately April or May 1942, had been to Prague on an official trip, and he went to see her on this occasion.
On page 8 is Exhibit No. 10, Document No. 6, a postcard of the defendant mailed by Army Postal Service dated 17 June 1942; in this postcard the defendant tells his wife that he has been ordered to return to Berlin.
On page 9 is Exhibit No. 11, Document No. 7, a telegram dated 24 June 1942 sent by Braune to the wife of the defendant, in which Mrs Haensch is being informed of the retransfer of the defendant, and she is asked to be in Berlin as from the 27 June 1942.
On pages 10 to 10-a is Exhibit No. 12, Document No. 8, letter of the Chief of NSDAP District Office Doebeln Court I, dated 1 July 1936, in which the defendant is informed that the exclusion from the NSDAP has become effective.
On page 11 is Exhibit No. 13, Document 9, affidavit of the former mayor Arno Witzsche Doebeln, dated 17 October 1947. He testifies that the defendant has been excluded from the National Socialist Party, and has been released from his job in the service of the Doebeln District, because of his behavior in front of the Kriesleiter.
On page 12, Exhibit No. 14, is Document No. 10, affidavit by Walter Schallenberg, dated 23 October 1947, dealing with the activity of the defendant in the SD Main Office and later the RSHA.
On pages 15 and 15-A is Exhibit No. 15, Document No. 12, affidavit of Wilhelm Martenz, dated 23 October 1947. Martenz was a criminal agent in SK 4-b. His statement concerns the time during which the defendant was in charge of the Commando in SK-IV-B as well as the activity of the defendant himself.
Pages 16 through 17, Exhibit No. 16, Document No. 13, affidavit of Gottfried Klingelmann dated the 30th of October 1947. He had been the chief of the Personnel Department of RSHA in 1939. He confirms that the members of the RSHA, after the war had broken out, had no possibility to give up their service voluntarily and that those who applied for release were threatened with disciplinary proceedings. Klingelmann furthermore states that the defendant, in spite of this, applied to Heydrich and asked to be released in order to join the Wehrmacht, without any success.
Pages 18 to 19a as Exhibit No. 17, Document No. 14, affidavit of Dr. Friedrich Stalmann dated October 27, 1947, concerning the activity of the defendant in Denmark. Stalmann confirms that the defendant extensively supported the interests of the Danish population and also the interests of the English and American civilian internees.
Pages 20 to 22 is Exhibit No. 18, Document No. 15, affidavit of Dr. Werner Best, the former Reich plenipotentiary in Denmark, of the 31st of October, 1947, likewise dealing withthe activity of the defendant in Denmark and gives a detailed description concerning the character of the defendant.
Now I shall come to Document Book No. II. From this book I offer and I submit-
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Riediger, we will take that up immediately after the recess.
(A recess was taken.)
(The hearing reconvened at 1130 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Durchholz for the defendant, Schulz. Your Honor, I would like to ask that the defendant Schulz be excused from attendance in court this afternoon in order to prepare his final plea, and I ask that instructions be given that he be brought to Room 57 immediately after lunch so that he may be at my disposal.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Schulz will be taken to Room 57 this afternoon, and there he will confer with his attorney for the afternoon.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, I ask that I may continue with my Document Book II.
PRESIDENT: Please do.
DR. RIEDIGER: On page 1, as Exhibit 19, I offer Document Number 16. This is an affidavit by Wilhelm Martens, of 20 November 1947, which supplements, or rather supports his explanation which he has already given and also is a further clarification as to the period of time during which Walter Haensch was in charge of the commando. This is an affidavit of Lisa Krueger-Martius, dated 2 November 1947. This is also a supplement to the former explanation already introduced previously, and which gives more precise statements concerning the time during which Walter Haensch was in Berlin and apart from that, also gives a description of his character. This is an affidavit by Erika Coulon, of 24 November 1947. The contents of this document show that Frau Coulon and her husband lived together with the couple Haensch in Berlin - Zehlendorf in the same house. They had personal and social contact with the defendant. Frau Coulon explains that the defendant Haensch only at the end of February 1942 was assigned COURT II CASE IX to the East--to Russia, and also that in May 1942 on the occasion of an official trip to Prague he stayed in Berlin during a visit.
Apart from that, the witness also testifies as to the character of the defendant, in particular concerning his attempts to leave the RSHA.
On page 6, as Exhibit Number 22, I offer Document Number 19. This is an affidavit by Dr. Friedrich Stalmann, dated 14 December 1947. This is also a supplement of his statement offered previously of 27 October 1947, and in particular deals with the personality of the defendant Haensch.
On page 7, as Exhibit Number 23, I offer Document Number 20. This is an affidavit by Charlotte Hermstaedt of 31 October 1947. Frau Hermstaedt was the secretary of the defendant during the time of his activity in the RSHA after his return from the Eastern assignment. This affidavit also discusses the personality of the defendant and his continuous efforts to leave the RSHA.
On page 8, as Exhibit Number 24, I offer Document Number 21. This is a postal receipt from Berlin of 28 February 1944. This shows that the defendant at the time received his salary from the finance office of the foreign office in Berlin. following persons who gave affidavits were not party members, Frau Ebbinghaus, Frau Lisa Krueger-Martius, Frau Maria Krueger-Martius, Frau Nevelling, and Frau Hermstaedt. Your Honor, I now would like to reserve the right to submit Document Book III, which is still being completed.
THE PRESIDENT: That right will be reserved to you. Who will succeed Dr. Riediger in the presentation of documents? You may proceed, Dr. Ulmer.
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, may I make another request? I would like to ask that the defendant Haensch be excused from attendance in court this afternoon, and that he be brought to Room 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant, Haensch, will be taken to Room 57 this afternoon to confer with his counsel.
DR. ULMER: Your Honor, I shall present my documents in the sequence in the document books. Therefore, document numbers and exhibit numbers will be the same. Since the document books were compiled while the trial was in progress, on the whole, according to the receipt of the documents, the numbering of the document books has not been done according to subject matter, but in each document book documents are contained on each subject. The subjects concerning the case of Six are (a) Vorkommando Moscow--Advance Commando Moscow, Counts 1 and 2; (b) security police, security service, Count 3; (c) activity of the defendant in the foreign office to support the refutation of count 3; (d) the scholarly activity of the defendant and general character, also to refute count 3. Therefore, every time when I make a short explanation on a document which I present, I shall add whether this document concerns (a), (b), (c), or (d). May I start?
THE PRESIDENT: Please do, Dr. Ulmer.
DR. ULMER: I submit Document Number 1, which also is Exhibit Number 1. This is the operation report Number 17 of 9 July 1941. Its contents deal with the assignment of commando Moscow, which included interpreters and people familiar with Moscow and which was commanded by SS Col. Six, to the 4th Tank Army Hq.
Document Number 2 is offered under Exhibit Number 2. This is the operation report Number 44, of 6 August 1941. It contains the material in the house of the Soviets in Smolensk safeguarded by the VKM. That is a task of safeguarding archives.
Document 3 is offered as Exhibit Number 3. This is an affidavit by Gerhard Utikal, a former Reich Office Chief and Chief of the Einsatz staff Rosenberg, which was given on 16 October 1947. It contains facts about the agreement between Rosenberg and Heydrich from the year 1940 according to which the security police received the right to evaluate documents and archive material in the occupied territories. It also talks about the dispatching of small commandos by Office 7 to Paris, The Hague, Brussels, Athens, and the setting up of such an archive commando for Moscow.
Document Number 4 I offer as Exhibit Number 4. This is an affidavit of 1 October 1947 of the former Colonel in the general staff, Erich Helmdach, who was G-2 officer in the AOK 4 from July until august 1941. He confirms that in the middle of July 1941 Six appeared in the command post of the AOK in Tolodiono , and as far as the tasks of the Vorkommando were concerned, he describes how document archives were to be secured in the Russian capital and he shows his intention of advancing on Moscow with the Division Reich, also that the advance Commando Moscow was made up of interpreters and they dealt with tasks which had nothing to do with liquidations.
Document Number 5 is offered as Exhibit Number 5. This is an affidavit of 1 October 1947 of Herr Oscar Wagner. At the time he was the assistant of the G-2 officer in the AOK 4. He confirms that Six as chief of the advance Commando Moscow in the middle of July 1941, was in Tolochino with the G-2 officer, Major Heldach, with whom he conducted discussions, and concerning the tasks of the VKM, he described the safe guarding of state archives in Moscow, Also he had received an army order for the securing of the documents.
I submit Document Number 6 as Exhibit Number 6. This is an affidavit of 3 November 1947 of the former government assessor, Karl Radl. This confirms that he and Six, became known as members of the Waffen SS in 1940 and the beginning of July in 1941 in Minsk, he happened to come Court2, Case 9 across him again and heard on that occasion that Six was in charge of a small archive commando, which was not part of Einsatzgruppe B, and that it was to safeguard archives in Moscow.
Document Number 7 is offered as Exhibit Number 7. This is an affidavit of the author, Cornelius von der Horst of 31 August 19471. It confirms that the meeting with Six in Smolensk came about owing to an illness in august 1941; the statement by a female member of the VKM that it was its task to secure archives and documents in Moscow. It confirms that the VKM was made up of a small staff of interpreters and the statement that the VKM, the Advance Commando Moscow, could not have taken part in executive measures.
Document Number 8 I submit and offer it as Exhibit Number 8. This is an affidavit of 7 October 1947 of the former colonel of the Waffen SS and artillery battalion commander of the Division Reich from the fall of 1940 to the fall of 1941. His name is Adolf Wunder, who was the immediate superior of Six in the Waffen SS. He describes in his affidavit, Six ' tasks in the Division Reich from December 1940 until June 1941 -Heydrich's repeated and vain attempts to call Six back from the Army service to Berlin. The recall of Six from the territory -- the advance territory in the East on 20 June 1941 to Berlin, Six' resistance to this order and the division commander's reference to his duty to obey. He also confirms the taking up of contact between Six and the Division Reich in the Beresina and the Jelna section and the discussions with the Division Reich in Smolensk during which Six explained the archive task of his commando in which he pointed out that he was independent from the Einsatzgruppen. He said that the strength of the advance Commando Moscow, consisted of 20 men, among them were about 5 interpreters, and he explained his intention to advance on Moscow with the Division Reich.
Document Number 9 is offered as Exhibit Number 9. This is the affidavit of the former General of the Waffen SS and chief of the SS main office, Hans Juettner, of 3 September 1947. Here it is confirmed that in the spring of 1940 Six reported to the Waffen SS.
After having received his basic and reserve officers' training, he was transferred to the Division Reich, and the chief of the security police, Heydrich, had tried in vain to call Six back from the army. Even Himmler himself, shortly before the outbreak of the Russian campaign, ordered Six to come back to Berlin. Heydrich intended to start a disciplinary action against Six because of disobedience and lack of discipline, and Juettner protected Six from Heydrich. Finally, the affidavit contains the confirmation that Juettner only released Six from the Waffen SS after this dispute was formally settled.
Document Number 10 I offer as Exhibit Number 10. This is an affidavit of 3 September 1947 of the Herr Paul Hauser, former colonel of the Waffen, commander of the Division Reich from 1939 until 1941. He assures Six' participation in the reserve officers' training course from September to December 1940, his transfer to the department of the artillery, Division Reich, and his participation in the campaign in France, the campaign against Yugoslavia, and the advance in the East in 1941, he took part in. Also the order by Himmler existed that Six should return to Berlin. This order was received a few days before war broke out for the Soviet Union. Finally, the statement that Six had to obey this order of Himmler.
Document No. 11 offered as Exhibit No. 11, this is an affidavit dated 14th September 1947, by one of the university professors wife, Veronika Vetter, from Smolensk. She confirms her meeting Six and his Commando in Smolensk. She confirms that no executive activity by Six and his people insofar as the local inhabitants were concerned. She confirms that Six returned to Berlin on 20 August 1941.
Document No. 121 offer as Exhibit No. 12. This is the affidavit of former University Lecturer Kurt Walz, dated 20 October 1947. It confirms that on 22 June 1941 Six was given leave from the Waffen-SS to go to Gerlin in order to set up an archive commando from Moscow, She also confirms that Six on 21 August 1941 returned from Russia because the military situation had delayed the capture of Moscow, and he didn't want to take over a Commando against the partisans. D Document No. 13, I offer as Exhibit No. 13. This is an affidavit of a co-worker of Six in the SD Main Office from 1935 until 1943. The name is Karl Burmester, dated 6 October 1947. It confirms the activity of Six as Chief of the Press Department in the SD from 1935 until 1937; of the Section for Home Affairs from 1937 until 1939, and of the Office VII, Office for Ideological Research, after 1939; also it confirmsthe tension between Six and Heydrich that existed and Six' efforts to work exclusively for the University, his volunteering and his service with the Waffen-SS, and Heydrich's repeated intentions of recalling him and ordering Six to Berlin in order to set up a commando to secure documents and archives in Moscow immediately after the war against Russia had started. It also confirms the archive task of Office VII in the occupied territories and the character of an archive commando. Finally it confirms that Six returned from Russia in August 1941, his release from the Waffen-SS in 1942; his leaving asChief of Office VII of the SD Main Office in March 1943.
Your Honor, these documents Nos. 1 to 13 inclusive which have the same exhibit numbers are those documents in this document book which deal with the subject "A", which I mentioned at the beginning. That is the subject "Advance Commando Moscow.", in order to refute Counts 1 and 2.
As Document No. 14 I offer as Exhibit No. 14, the affidavit dated 29th September 1947, of Dr. Werner Best, Office Chief I in the RSHA until 1940. This statement confirms that Six had a bad relationship with Heydrich; at the beginning of the war in 1939 he tried in vain to be released from the SD; it also confirms that Office VII merely dealt with scholarly tasks, and it confirms that since 1939 Six tried to be released from the Waffen-SS, and that Six hated Heydrich.
Document No. It isoffered as Exhibit No. 15, which is the affidavit dated 29 September 1947 of Dr. Wilhelm Albert, personnel chief of the SD Main Office from 1935 until 1939. It contains the order to Six to set up a Press Department and a Literature Department in the SD Main Office in 1935, and Dr. Six scientific aims to carry out this task; his functions as Chief of the Department "Cultural Life" towards the end of 1937, and it also confirms the tension that existed between Six and Heydrich, and the serious clashes between them in the year of 1939.
The Document No. 16 which I submit I offer as Exhibit No. 16, This is an affidavit dated 13 August 1947, by the secretary of the defendant Six, from 1938 until 1945. The name is Gerda Scholz. This affidavit contains the confirmation of the disputes that arose between Heydrich and Six after 1939 and of the lossof confidence of Heydrich to Six. It is confirmed here that Six attempted to be released from the SD in 1939; Office VII was set up and his tasks are described. It is also confirmed that he volunteered for the Waffen-SS in order to be released from the SD. The formation of the "Advance Commando Moscow" purely as an archive commando. Also this affidavit is the confirmation of the fact that Six was given leave from the SD in the year of 1942 and was transferred to the Foreign Office, and finally released from the SD in the Spring 1943, and transferred to the Cultural Political Department in the Foreign Office.
It also confirms the keeping in office non-National Socialist officials in the Cultural Political Department, by its director Six and that he kept officials in the Foreign Office whose political opinions were not popular.
Document No. 17 isoffered as Exhibit No. 17. It is an affidavit of Hans Hendrik Neumann, adjutant of the Chief of the Security Police and SD, Heydrich, from 1936 until 1939. The date it bears is 4th September 1947. It confirms the scholarly activity of Six in the SD; the tension between Heydrich and Six. Heydrich's judgment concerning Six as an "intellectual" and eager to compromise and the clashes between Six and Heydrich in 1938; disputes between the two ever since 1939; and that his application for release was rejected in 1939.
I submit Document No. 18 and offer it as Exhibit No. 18. This is the affidavit dated 3 September 1947, by Ursula Scherrer, Secretary in the Adjutant's Office of the Chief of the Security Police and the SD, Heydrich, from 1940 until 1942. It confirms the estrangement between Heydrich and Six, after 1938; disputes between the two ever since 1939. That Six was removed from his office, and that his application for release was rejected in 1939 Heydrich's disapproval because Six was absent for a long time from the Waffen-SS, and the severe disputes between Six and Heydrich in Prague at the end of 1941.
Document No. 19 is offered asExhibit No. 19. This is the affidavit dated 22 September 1947, the former adjutant of Himmler's Werner Grothmann. It confirms that in the time from 1940 until the end of the war Six never was asked to make personnel reports to Himmler, and that he made no written reports to Himmler.
Document No. 20 I offer as Exhibit No. 20. This is an affidavit of 1 October 1947, of Willi Suchanek, former liaison officer with the Chief of the German Police Himmler.