THE PRESIDENT: None of these documents will be accepted just because they are presented. They all have to be weighed on balances of reasonability, law and effect, and justice.
DR. STUBENVOLL: Yes, but in case the document should be accepted I would like to ask the Tribunal to accept an affidavit or the testimony by a witness and this is the one from Karl Wolf, SS-Lieutenant General, who is still here. This is to bring proof-
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, Doctor. We will save a great deal of time by you merely making the request and we will rule on it and the ruling will be in the affirmative. You can obtain this affidavit and you can submit it.
DR. STUBENVOLL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. KOESSL for Ott and Schubert: Your Honor, I likewise raise an objection against the submission of this document but for another reason. The Count Faber-Gastell who is mentioned here was at the time of the alleged disobedience a cavalry officer. It is completely clear that a cavalry officer could refuse to carry out police measures just as well as an infantry officer could refuse to carry out an artillery mission. For this reason I don't consider this document as relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: This incident did or did not happen. If it did not happen the whole statement is a lie. If it did happen then we must determine whether it would have any effect on the interpretation of rule 47. That's all there is to it.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honors, the documents we are about to offer in Document Book V-B concern some of the defendants who were members of Einsatzgruppe B. The first document we offer is Document No. USSR-56, found on page 1 of the document book and offered as Prosecution Exhibit 234. This document is an official report of the Extraordinary State Commission showing certain atrocities committed by the Germans in Smolensk and it is followed by a list of the immediate perpetrators whom the Commissioner regarded as responsible for the many mass tortures and murders shown in the reports. The first name listed by them as responsible for these crimes is major General Naumann.
The next document we offer is USSR Exhibit 48. This is Prosecution Exhibit 235. This is smother official German report, showing that in the vicinity of Smolensk one hundred thirty-five thousand people were killed during the German occupation. The defendant Naumann testified that he was unable to estimate the number killed during his time of command in Smolensk. This document was referred to at that time as giving the Tribunal some indication of the activities that were taking place.
The next document offered is NO-5771, as Prosecution Exhibit 236. In the opening statement for the defendant Naumann, remarks were made that while he was a police official in Holland he had treated the Dutch citizens very well and was very kind be them. What we offer here by way of rebuttal is the official report of the Chief Police Officer of the Hague concerning the defendant Erich Naumann and this report shows that he played an important part in the murder of Dutch citizens during the German occupation. This is the SS personnel record of the defendant von Six and includes in it the letter from Himmler showing the defendant's promotion to Colonel four outstanding service in the Einsatz. In includes another letter showing his assignment as commander of the Security Police and the SD in the East and his dates of service in the Security police Einsatz in the East as 22 June 1941 to 28 August 1941.
The Tribunal will recall that the defendant testified that he had nothing to do with the Einsatz and that he left on the 20th of August. This document was put to him to refresh his memory during cross examination and is now offered as rebuttal for the statements he made on his direct examination. This is a document which was offered and received in evidence by the International Military Tribunal. It is a captured German document and it is part of the files of the German Foreign Office. It gives a summary of a speech made by Ambassador Six. The important parts are found on page 47 of the document book. The Tribunal will notice that this summary states that the defendant Six discussed the physical elimination of eastern Jewry and urged that the Jewish question should be solved not only for Germany but also internationally. On page 47 of our document book, toward the bottom of the page, there is a further parenthetical note in this report which says that the details of the state of the execution measures in the various countries would be kept secret and would not be entered in these minutes. The Tribunal may recall that he, the defendant, stated that he opposed the anti-Jewish measures. This document is offered as a direct contradiction of the testimony he gave on the stand.
Our next document is L-185, offered as Prosecution Exhibit 239. This document was also received in evidence by the International Military Tribunal and is a table of organization of the RsHA as of 1 January 1941. The defendant testified that while he was Chief of Amt 7 of the RsHA he did not have any special section dealing with Free Masonry or Jewry. The table of organization will show that he did have such sections and the people who were in charge of those sections.
Our next document is L-219, offered as Prosecution Exhibit 240. This again is a table of organization of the RsHA as of 1 October 1943 and the Tribunal will notice that Amt 7, which was headed by the Defendant Six, still has a section concerned with Judaism, political churches, and other opposing groups.
This is a letter which was given to us by the witness Veronika Vetter, who came here for the purpose of cross examination concerning an affidavit she had made for the defendant Six. She testified that she was certain that she saw Professor Six in Smolensk at the time she received this letter. The contents of the letter are not important. The significant parts of it however are the dates and the heading. This is found on page 137 of our document book and the Tribunal will notice that it is dated 31 August 1941 and the heading is "Vorkommando Moscow of the Einsatzgruppe B, of the Security Police and the SD." The defendant testified that he was not in Smolensk at that time, that the Vorkommando Moscow was not a part of Einsatzgruppe B, and that the Vorkommando Moscow had nothing to do with the Security Police and the SD. This letter, given to us by a defense witness, is offered as direct contradiction of those statements by the defendant. hibit 242. This is an interrogation of the defendant Klingelhoefer, in which he stated among other things that he had urged Noack to shoot only the old and sick people. That is found on the top of page 144. On cross examination, the defendant specifically denied that and requested that the interrogation be introduced. Your Honor, with the exception of a few which were mentioned previously.
DR. MAYER (for Klingelhoefer): Your Honor,in view of the submission of this document, NO-5846, I have only this objection: namely, that it is not complete. And I ask that instructions be given to the prosecution to bring in the complete interrogation of the defendant. I understood it that way too when the prosecution promised the introduction during the cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: What about that, Mr. Ferencz?
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, as far as I know, that is the complete interrogation. We certainly have no intention of introducing a partial translation. This is the only interrogation I have in my possession and when I offered it I offered it with the firm belief that it is complete. If Defense Counsel has any knowledge that it is not complete, I will be very glad to join with him in making such corrections as he may suggest.
DR. MAYER: The defendant Klingelhoefer has testified on the witness stand, that he was interrogated not only on the 1st but also on the 2nd of July, on which the affidavit was made out which is the basis for this, Thus, this is only one part of the interrogation by Mr. Wartenberg.
MR. FERENCZ: As I understand the defense Counsel's reply, Your Honor, it is that there was another interrogation, at another time. But this interrogation then is complete. I do not think we are required to put in every interrogation we have. Personally, I do not know about the other interrogation. Offhand, I can't see any objection to giving it to the defendant if he wants it, but I certainly object to the suggestion that we have only offered part of an interrogation or the insistence that we offer another interrogation that we do not wish to submit.
THE PRESIDENT: It would appear that you have introduced what you said you would introduce -- the interrogation of the defendant. So that completes that transaction. Now, if Dr. Mayer desires that some other document be presented, the existence of which he is aware of, and will locate that document, then he can present it himself.
DR. MAYER: Your Honor, it isn't possible for me to introduce it myself because the interrogation is in the hands of the prosecution. This interrogation was submitted here in connection with the affidavit of the defendant, which Mr. Wartenberg took down, and the basis for this affidavit was the entire interrogation.
THE PRESIDENT: When you say the entire interrogation, you mean that there was more than one interrogation. Is that what you mean?
DR. MAYER: No, it is not more than one. It is one interrogation which took two days to be completed. In other words, it went on into the 2nd of July but it is one interrogation. There was one night in between, and it bears the date of the 2nd July. The interrogation which was submitted here was siggned, neither by Mr. Wartenberg, nor by the defendant Klingelhoefer. Therefore I conclude that the signatures are to be found at the conclusion of the complete interrogation.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, these are the stenographer's notes taken during the interrogation. Naturally they are not signed, inasmuch as they are prepared by the stenographer for the information of the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Ferencz, it is the observation of the Tribunal that you have not only been fair but you have been very generous in connection with the requests made by defense counsel. Would you please look to see that if by chance there still is another part of this one interrogation, which apparently went over two days, - it may be this represents one day alone, - and if there is another part which has not been introduced, will you kindly see that Dr. layer has the opportunity to look at it and to present it if he so desires?
MR. FERENCZ: Yes, your Honor.
DR. MAYER: Thank you, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You are welcome.
DR. LEHNERT: Dr. Lehnert, attorney for Naumann. 48 and USSR-56, which have been submitted by the prosecution as Exhibits 235 and 234. The representative of the prosecution has claimed that these documents repudiate the testimony of the defendant Naumann about the figure of those executed in Smolensk. First of all nothing can be seen what connection exists between the incidents in these documents and between Naumann. First of all I want to point out that from the abovementioned documents it cannot even be seen whether these dead people who were found in the mass graves were actually executed, and it is also not proved whether they were executed by units of Einsatzgruppe B. Furthermore, I would like to point out chat in these reports the time of death is stated to be between the middle of 1941 to the fall of 1943. Naumann was chief of Einsatzgruppe B only curing part of this time. In the document USSR-48 no persons are mentioned at all. In the document USSR-56 a while number of people are mentioned without establishing any definite connection between the various people and the incidents.
With the exception of Neumann the other persons mentioned there are completely unknown. Presumably they did not even belong to units of the Einsatzgruppe. Exhibit 236, I would also like to object to it because the conduct of Naumann in Holland is not a substance of the indictment and because the various testimonies included in the police report do not show that they were sworn to.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, with regard to this last objection made by defense counsel, perhaps we should like to hear something on it. We have permitted the introduction of much testimony, affidavits on the attitude and actions of the defendants in areas other than that in which they operated, insofar as the charges in the indictment are concerned. Those are documents which tend to demonstrate the character of the defendant, and we are inclined to say at this juncture that we regard them as relevant, but whether the prosecution would be permitted to introduce a document as to an act done by a defendant elsewhere in the nature of a crime to help establish that he was of a criminal tendency we are not prepared to admit.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, this document is not offered to convict the defendant Naumann of the murders he committed in Holland. However, in the opening statement for the defendant his own defense counsel pointed out that in Holland the defendant Naumann had been a very fine gentleman and had treated all the Dutch citizens with great generosity. He introduced that first. We had no intention to introduce anything concerning Holland. It is offered solely for the purpose of refuting that character information or testimony offered by the defendant himself.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, at the very most this report on activities in Holland would be regarded only as a contradiction of any testimony introduced on behalf of the defendant Naumann, that his attitude in Holland was entirely correct, in the nature of impeaching what after all is more or less collateral, but it will have no bearing on what actually happened in Russia.
We make that statement now because when we dispose of the objections en masse we might not particularly refer to this document. Very well.
DR. VOELKEL: Voelkel for the defendant Six.
As Document No. NO-4767 the prosecution has submitted a number of documents which are contained in the SS-files of the defendant Six. The representative of the prosecution has mentioned a number of documents which already have been a subject of the cross-examination. Furthermore, there is a document among them of the SS-Operational Office of the 7th of April, 1942, Page 3 of the German document book, in which it is stated that Six as Commander of the Security Police and SD in the East has been assigned in the East as such. I repeat SS-Main Operational Office, 7th of April, 1942. There it is stated that Six was employed in the East as Commander of the Security Police and SD. Now, during the presentation of the documents the prosecution did not expressly mention this document, but I see in the presentation of this document that the prosecution brings up a new fact according to which Six is alleged to have been the commander of the Security Police and SD in the East. The course of the case up to this point has shown that such an activity was not carried out by Six in the east. Therefore, I object only to this part of the document, and I would welcome it if the prosecution would make some clarifying statement whether it will draw any conclusions from this document.
MR. FERENCZ: The conclusions to be drawn from this document, your Honor, are solely the prerogative of the Tribunal. was assigned to the Security Police and the SD in the last. It is something which he specifically denied in his direct examination, and it is offered as a direct rebuttal of what he testified to.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you not get that?
DR. VOELKEL: Evidently the interpreter didn't catch it because it was too quick. Therefore, parts of his statement were not interpreted.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, please repeat it, Dr. Ferencz, because it is rather important.
MR. FERENCZ: I stated that the conclusions to be drawn from this document are a matter for the Tribunal, and that we offer the document to show that the defendant was in fact with the Security Police and the SD in the East and not merely, as he stated, a professor collecting archives.
DR. VOELKEL: My objection against this document is made from another point of view. That Six was a representative of the RSHA in the East was not contested. My objection is directed against the expression " Commander of the Security Police and the SD in the East". This designation is a special agency designation, which Six never had in the East, and, therefore, it brings up a new fact in the rebuttal, and I object against this new introduction.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it is not a new fact when it attacks what you submitted.
DR. VOELKL: The new fact consists in the fact that the concept of commander of the Security Police and the SD is a fixed one. It designates a definite activity as, for example, the Commander of the Security Police and SD actually carried out in Oslo or in Riga or some place else. One can interpret the document to mean that this special office was held by Six, and to this extent it would be the introduction of a new fact by the prosecution against which I object. But if one should merely conclude from this that Six was assigned in the East as a result of an order from the RSHA, then I would not object to this fact, considering the case-in-chief presented so far, and I would then merely object to the expression "Commander".
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the weight to be given all these documents is something which will be determined later, of course, in the final appraisement of all the testimony in the case. The prosecution maintains that Six was doing a certain thing in Russia; Six maintains he was doing something else. That is the issue.
DR. VOELKL: My further objection is directed against Document PS3319. It is the document in which, among other things, the Krummhuebel conference is mentioned, but which includes a large number of other documents which might perhaps show a responsibility of the defendant concerning the Jewish question in Bucharest. The prosecution mentioned those documents only insofar as they concern the Krummhuebel conference. Therefore, my objections will first of all be limited to those parts of the document. The report about Krummhuebel is on pages 15 to 25 in the German text and bears no signature. Only the letter addressed to the various subordinate agencies is signed by Schleier. In the cross-examination the defendant Six has already stated that the excerpt regarding the conference which is not signed would be considered as unauthenticated and, therefore, I repeat this objection against the minutes of the conference. clusions are to be drawn from the fact that the measures of the Foreign Office were to be kept secret as far as they concerned the Jewish question.
As for this point I must say that Six merely was the director of the cultural political office in the Foreign Office.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Counsellor, you are arguing the case, and this is not the time to argue it. You must show that this document is spurious; that it is irrelevant; that it is incompetent, but you may not argue the facts in the document. Now, Professor Six had an opportunity on the witness stand to answer this very document. Now, when you come to argue the case to the Tribunal you go into it further, but this is not the time to argue it.
DR. VOELKL: Your Honor, I will be brief then, and I will just say that those parts of the documen t bring up a new point which make Six responsible for the Jewish questions in the Foreign Office, and to this extent another department, i.e. the Department II of the Foreign Office was competent, and I object against this new point, or rather, I would like to reserve the right to bring a refutation of this new point in the form of another affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that is for you to determine.
DR. VOELKL: Another objection is concerned with the Document L-185. There the table of organization of the Foreign Office is contained and the responsibility of Six is fixed insofar as on the 1st of March 1941 he was supposed to have been responsible for Department 7. Six was at the time with the troops, and in that respect the document is immaterial in reference to the defendant. I have the same objection to the Document L-219. This document contains a table of organizations of the RSHA of the 1st of October 1943, that is to say at the time when Six was already in the Foreign Office and was no longer responsible in the table of organizations as Chief of the Office 7. In this respect the document is irrelevant as far as the defendant Six is concerned. only insofar as here not the original of the statement of the 31st of August 1942 was submitted but merely a certified copy with the signature of a person by the name of Schroeder.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will pass on all these objections simultaneously. You will be ready to present your other document book?
DR. KOESSL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And who will follow, anybody else ready?
(One of the defense counsel raised his hand)
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.
MR. WALTON: And if Your Honor please, just for purpose of the record, the Exhibit No. 233 was skipped. There will be no Exhibit 233.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The Tribunal will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. KOESSL: Dr. Koessl for the defendant Ott. Your Honor, for the defendant Ott I have Document No. 10, which I offer as Exhibit No. 10. This supplement brings evidence of the fact that Ott in the area of Bryansk has brought about that in his area the deportation of forced labor into the Reich was discontinued. I submit this document as evidence as to his attitude towards the civilian population. That concludes my presentation of documents.
DR. VOELKL: Dr. Voelkl for the defendant Six. Your Honor, as I have already explained this morning, I shall now present Document Book No. II. My colleague, Dr. Ulmer, has already submitted yesterday Document Book III for Six. Document Book II contains under Document No. 40 the Exhibit No. 47, which I am herewith offering. It is an affidavit from the former research assistant, Emil Augsburg. He states on 5 October 1947 that on 23 June 1941 he received the order to join Six as an interpreter for Moxcow for the prospective Archive work, and has been in the company of Six from Warsaw until Six' departure on 20 August 1941. He confirms that the assignment of the Commando was the seizure of archives in Moscow and that it was independent of the work of Einsatzgruppe B. He also confirms the journey of Six to Berlin in order to get new instructions with regard to his relations with Nebe; the formation of the Archives Detachment at Minsk on 8 July 1941 under the name of Vorkommando Moscow, after an interview with the Chief of the High Army Command of the 4th Army. The composition of the commando is also covered. According to explicit instructions in the RSHA of Office Chief I, Streckenbach, the Commando was to be formed from men with local knowledge of Moxcow and of interpreters in Einsatzgruppe B. He also talked about the start of the Advance Commando Moscow between 14 July and 16 July to the Garrison of AOK-IV in Tolotschino, and, he also mentioned the conference with the Major Helmdach on the tasks of Advance Kommando Moscow. Then in a series of statements he describes in the affidavit that contact was made with the Division Reich and that agreements were made for this division concerning the further advance with this division until the time that this division continued its advance . Archives and cultural material was seized and secured in Smolensk.
After the arrival of the staff of Einsatzgruppe B in Smolensk, on 6 August 1947 - he perhaps means 1941 - the situation and task of Advance Kommando Moscow didn't change. Then it is mentioned that the executiin of the tasks given by Six became impossible, owing to the complete change in the military situation in the central sector of the Eastern Front and that for a longer period of time, so that Nebe made an offer to Six to carry out another task in the Advance Kommando in the meantime, which consisted in anti-partisan warfare, that Six refused the offer on principle and asked for his recall from the RSHA, the Security Main Office, and that Six left on 20 August 1941. After his departure Nebe took over the Advance Kommando himself for the time being. The witness further testified in his affidavit that while Six was in charge he kept to his functions as Archive Detachment assignment and carried out neither police actions nor did he participate in any. Your Honor, this affidavit belongs to that group of documents which belong to the group "A" mentioned when the previous documents were presented, and, they therefore refer to the activity of Advance Kommando Moscow.
The next document, Six No. 41, which I would like to introduce as Exhibit No. 49, belongs also to the same series of subjects.
ment director, on 18 December 1947. Huppenkothen was together with the defendant in Lublin, and after that went to Berlin. There he reported to the Office I Strechenbach of the Reich Security Main Office, and the latter inquired from him where Six was. He gave the proper reply to this, and as a result therefrom Heydrich recalled Six from the East. He also confirmed the return of the defendant from the east to Berlin, between the 19th and 26th of August, 1941. I also offer the document Six No. 42, as Exhibit No. 50. This is an affidavit by Ilsetraut Plautz, a former secretary of the defendant, given on 10 December 1947. Plautz states that she was the secretary of the defendant in the Reich Security Main Office, and that on 23 August 1941 she returned from her leave, and after that had written lengthy report -- which the defendant made about his activity in the advance kommando. In this report, nothing was contained about execution measures. I would like you to cross out the next mentioned of the affidavits, by Ursula Alander. I intend to bring Miss Alander here tomorrow as a witness.
I now come to the document Six No. 44, which I would like to offer as Exhibit 51. Here an affidavit is given by Dr. Dittel dated 5 December 1947 where it is confirmed that after Professor Six loft the SD and Office VII in March, 1943, Dittel he took over as acting head of Office VII. It is also asserted that Office VII carried out library, archives and press cutting work, according to the manner of academic libraries and archives. It also says that this office carried out scientific research in the manner carried out by acedemic institutes. Dittel also confirms that Office VII did not have a regional organization in Germany, nor did they have one outside of Germany, and that it consisted of 40 to 50 collaborators. This document belongs to the Series B, as far as it concerns the work of the defendant within the SD.
The same applies for the next document, document Six No. 45, which I offer as Exhibit 52. This is an affidavit of the university professor Guenther Franz, of 17 November 1947. Franz states that Office VII, according to its task and owing to its small size and since they did not have a regional organization, was a special body within the RSHA.
Office VII was not an office like the other departments in the Reich Security Main Office, but rather a research institute which comprised, including the clerical help, about 50 people. The object of its research was not the present structure, but they had to deal with the historical roots and their idealogical conceptions, in order to gain an objective conception of history. In order to achieve this aim, commissions for research were given to scientists who did not have to belong to the SS or the Party. The results of the research were discussed in annual conferences. The results were not kept secret, but were published in books. Then Professor Franz analyzes some books as to their scientific contents, and states that the German scholars welcomed the work of Office VII, that in the scientific press and professional periodicals, their publications were approved. the year 1943, in which the activities of Office VII are described in a similar manner. Your Honor, this supplement which I have just mentioned, I offer as the next document, Six, No. 46, which I would like to offer as Exhibit No. 53. I would like to point out that there is a close relation between the two documents. In the excerpt of the research report by Franz, this historical periodical, "The World in History," is referred to and there the work of the Reich Security Main Office is also mentioned. These four books are reveiwed, and it is explained that they had the task to introduce the scientific research work on the Masonic question. The publications of Office VII constituted free scientific research, connected with degree and doctors' theses. Omitting speculations and presumptions, those works limit themselves exclusively to the historical archives. The following works are mentioned here; a book by Hans Schick. It deals with the older Rosicrucians. It describes the origin of the older Rosicrucians and for the first time by bringing in the entire literature about Rosicrucians emphasizes the three genuine Rosicrucian books, which are the basis for the entire Rosicrucian theory.
Then a work by Adolf Rossberg, concerning "Free Masonry and Politics in the Age of the French Revolution," and the history of the Order of Illuminati, and this deals with the most peculiar picture of the Masonic organization in the 18th century. The third work is written by Heinz Guertler. It deals with German Freemasonry in the service of Napoleon's politics, and in particular with the work and the history of Free Masonry in the kingdom of Westphalia. The last work is by Hans Riegelmann, it lists the European dynasties in thier relations with the European dynasties and Freemasonry and gives all members of the former ruling houses who were Freemasons, and who influenced the policy of their countries.
I also offer Document No. 47 as Exhibit 54. This is an affidavit of the university lecturer Hans Schick of 5 December 1947. This document also belongs to the series of questions D, that is, concerning the work of the defendant in the SD. Schick confirms in his affidavit that Office VII of the Reich Security Main Office had only research tasks. This consisted of looking after archives of historical value, and also confirms the establishment of a research institute similar to the university, and the carrying out of scientific research. Schick proves these aims with actual publications, which prove the scholarly character, and which are connected with Document Six No. 46, which I have just submitted.
I now offer as Document Six No. 48 Exhibit No. 55. This is an affidavit from the university professor Eschmann of 3 November 1947. It confirms that Six as a student was not anti-Jewish. At the university in Berlin, he stood up for colleagues who had Jewish relations. It also gives the establishment of the Berlin faculty of international relations according to the traditions of the Heidelberg sociology, and Six's positive attitude concerning the question of bringing about an understanding with France. This positive attitude is proved by the fact among other things that the defendant intervened in favor of the French resistance leader Boutelleon. The document 48 which was just submitted and the following one, No. 49, belong to the series of questions D. They concern the scientific work of the defendant.
Document No. 49, which I offer as Exhibit 56, constitutes an affidavit by Professor Jaeschke from the University in Munster. It was made out on 5 December 1947. In it he said that Professor Six, in his office as dean, felt responsible to the world of learning, that even in the questions of safeguarding and protecting endangered cultural treasures he never broke the rules of international law. He proves this with an example which refers to a library at the university, I have to say to some scientific library in Italy.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
DR. VOELKL: (Continued): I also offer document #50 as Exhibit #57. This was made by Hans Otto Meissner a former Counsel of the Foreign Office. It was made out 17 December 1947. In this affidavit Meissner states that he as a representative of the German Embassy in Milano took part in the conferences of the Foreign Office at Krummhuebel in April 1944. He also states that in the lecture of Dr. Six, statements about the extermination of Jewry or of about a solution of the Jewry question according to the Krummhuebel records were never made.
The last document which I offer is Document #51. This is Exhibit #53. This was given by Erika Boese a former photographic reporter of the Foreign Office. It was made out 10 December 1947. Erika Boese confirms, as a participant of the meeting at Krummhuebel in April 1944, that Dr. Six in his lecture at no point asked for the elimination of Eastern Jewry nor did he make any hints in that direction. This document #51 and the previous one #50 belongs to the series of questions C and therefore concern the work of the defendant in the Foreign Office. Document Book II is concerned. Your Honor, according to the announcement made yesterday it will now be possible that Fraulein Ursula Alander be heard as a witness here tomorrow morning and I ask for the permission of the Tribunal that at the beginning of tomorror morning's session I may be permitted to introduce the witness to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be done.
MR. WALTON: If your Honors please, it looks like the opportunity for Dr. Linck and I think our session will not present itself this afternoon. In the event that something unforeseen would happen I will be in my office if you will have the Marshal call me.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Mr. Walton, that will be done.
DR. KRAUSE for Haensch: Your Honor, I would now like to introduce Document Book III. From this book I submit and offer on Court No. II, Case No. IX.