THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the translation section and mimeographing section will be so informed.
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, according to the experiences we have had here as a defense counsel, from previous trials, may I point out the following, which comes up as to our initiative in presenting our case. Sofar as I know the Prosecution is only just preparing its final concluding brief. If we want to reply to it now, I don't think that we shall be able to get ready our anti-closing briefs by the time the final summation is completed, and I don't think that we will get the translation ready in time. In the Doctors' trial before Tribunal No. I, the Tribunal No. I decided that our anti-closing briefs be after the final summation. May I ask the Tribunal that because of these technical difficulties, which I know from my experience as defense counsel here, that you will also consider that matter.
THE PRESIDENT: We are naturally always ready to hear anything which has to do with the disposition of the issues in this case, but necessarily we must specify a deadline, because if we say we will receive evidence or briefs even after that date, then, knowing lawyers as I do, you will bank upon that and then not attempt to get your briefs ready by that deadline. That is the reason we have indicated that all briefs should be with the Tribunal no later than the last date of the summations, because, naturally, the Tribunal will need time to study all these briefs in the preparation of the eventual judgment, but, of course, no one will be excluded, no one will be denied the privilege and opportunity and right to present anything any time up until the very last moment the decision is rendered, which is vital and important to the case, but , we must specify a certain date and hope that the mechanical difficulties will not prevent your submit ting your evidence or arguments by that date.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I intend to join the defense on this motion. The deadline now passed by the Tribunal for the submission of briefs, is, of course, a correct one. Nevertheless, the Prosecution is extremely pressed in its time, we have to prepare altogether twenty-three briefs, it will be extremely hard for us to present these briefs before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: We can not expect to know that no attorney has done any work up until today, and then we are suddenly confronted with this mountain of work. You cannot tell us now you are immediately to start on the twenty-three briefs. I presume you have been working on these briefs before now.
MR. HOCHWALD: We certainly did, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Because if you have not been working, you certainly ought to notify those who pay you that you have not been working.
MR. HOCHWALD: We have already finished some of these briefs but the Tribunal knows that a lot of evidence was presented just during the last days; we have to amend our briefs to that effect, we have to make some stand as to the defense of the defendant, also as to their documents. It is just that we ask the Tribunals pardon and ask respectfully a little bit to enlarge the time given us for submitting the briefs.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we have a calendar here, and I trust everyone will take note of these dates. When the Tribunal recess this afternoon, it will recess until February 2nd, allowing for one day, which will be established this afternoon, to receive whatever remaining documents still must be presented; summations will be heard during the week of February 2nd, that is, from February 2nd up until and including Saturday, February 7th. Two weeks will be taken by the Tribunal in preparing the Judgment, which will be delivered on February 24th , the week of February 24th, because February 23rd is a holiday.
Now, that is the schedule, so you see that the longer the briefs are delayed, the less time the Tribunal will have to weigh them thoroughly, as they should be weighed, so it is to the interest of every attorney to get his briefs in as quickly as he can.
MR. HOCHWALD: We certainly shall endeavor to put our briefs in as quickly as we can.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Mr. Walton, you will be ready to proceed immediately after the recess. You are not to proceed, but you will be here when Dr. Linck presents the documents.
MR. WALTON: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Now we can assure Dr. Linck that we will positively hear him immediately after recess. It is one week now we have had him going back and forth. The Tribunal will be in recess fifteen minutes.
(Recess) (The hearing reconvened at 1130 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. DIETMANN: Dietmann for Jost. Your Honor, may I ask that the defendant Jost be excused from the sessions this afternoon in order to prepare the final plea and to give instructions that he be sent to Room 57 at 2 o'clock.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Jost will be excused from attendance in Court this afternoon. At 2 o'clock he will be taken to Room 57 where he may confer with his counsel.
DR. DIETMANN: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You are welcome.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I submit Document Number 64 as Exhibit Number 65. It is submitted as proof that Ohlendorf was not sent to Russia as a full-time member of the SD, and that through the order to report there, no change happened in his honorary membership in the SD. I quote very briefly , "During his assignment in the East Ohlendorf was subject to the regulations as everybody else in the army was subject to them or anyone else employed in the war service or in the Reich Group Trade, that is to say, he received his salary minus the certain amounts which were deducted for his family. Furthermore, he also received that from the Reich Group Trade." In their Document Book VD the prosecution submitted Document Number 5821. I have asked a few questions to the prosecution witness, Dr. Rudolph Diels, in the form of cross examination and have put them into the form of an affidavit. I shall submit the translation later on. I have agreed with Mr. Walton that any objection he might have would be raised by him after the translation has been submitted.
MR. WALTON: If Your Honors please, Dr. Aschenauer is essentially correct, but I would like the record to show that that agreement was made subject to approval by the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Approval is granted.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I shall hand in the translation to the Tribunal, too, I may briefly quote from this affidavit. May affidavit in Volume VD is handed to me by defense counsel for Ohlendorf, Document Number 5821 which I have made out in the year 1946. I have the following to say about that, My affidavit does not refer to the problem of the resistance against the Fuehrer Order. If during my time in office as a senior government counsellor in the Prussian Gestapo Office, it had been possible to me to save Communists from execution, this was possible because at that time I always was able to have personal access to Hitler or Goering. Because of my anti-revolutionary practices I could no longer be kept by Heydrich and Himmler. I became a victim to the power-grab of Heydrich and Himmler, with the reason that I had sabotaged the German revolution. In the case of Gauleiter Lauterbacher, it isn't a matter of military orders, but these are directives by the civilian superior. As a result of the difficulties with Gauleiter Lauterbacher, I had to leave my job as a senior Government Counsellor. This corresponded to my desire because I could now be active in industry without bothering with politics. In the case of the Count Faber-Castell, whom I know from hearsay, it was not a military disobedience to the Fuehrer Order, but a refusal to carry out the directives of the immediate superior. If I am told that in Ohlendorf's transfer as an Einsatzgroup chief in the East it was practically a transfer as punishment, then I must say that a strict refusal to obey an order on the part of Ohlendorf would have had severe or even the severest consequences for Ohlendorf."
MR. WALTON: Referring to the affidavit which has just been read, if Dr. Aschenauer will state to the Court that the affidavit is in the proper form and that he has read into the record as pertinent parts or the gist of that affidavit, I can answer the affidavit now and it will not be necessary to dispose of this matter at a later time, since the Court kindly reserved time for objection to me at some future date. If he will assure us that this affidavit is in the proper form and that he has read the pertinent parts and the full gist into the record, I can answer.
DR. ASCHENAUER: The affidavit was taken by me personally and is properly made out, and what I read out are quotes from the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. That is adequate.
MR. WALTON: Unless then,sir, there is something new or startling in which he has not read, then I offer no objection to this document. Now, of course, if when I get it there is something which was not read, then I would ask to be heard on it.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. WALTON: The Prosecution does, however, object to the Ohlendorf Document Number 65, which is Prosecution's Exhibit 64 on the grounds
JUDGE SPEICHT: That is the other way a round.
MR. WALTON: Ohlendorf Document 65, which is Defense Document 64 on the grounds that this document is immaterial in that what position he occupied in the SD when he was de facto an SD member with full power in the East does not - is not material to the issues in the case, and for that reason the Prosecution objects.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. We don't need to reply to that, we are going to make our rule after all the documents are submitted. Dr. Linck, would you please now present your documents?
DR. LINCK: Linck for Ruehl. Your Honor, I have two document books to submit. Both of them have been translated and are available here. I ask the Tribunal to take up Book II first.
THE PRESIDENT: For the moment we only appear to have Book I before us. Do you have II, Judge Speight? Yes, well, you may proceed.
DR. LINCK: The defendant, Ruehl, belonged to Einsatzkommando 10-B in Einsatzgroup D, as is well-known. First of all, I would like to describe the time of his membership to this commando by two affidavits which are in Document Book II. The affiants of these affidavits studied with the defendant at the University of Berlin, were torn away from their studies with him, and were ordered to report to Pretsch and together with Ruehl they resumed their studies on the first of October '41, which had been interrupted by the military assignment.
For this I offer and submit Ruehl Document Number 23, affidavit of August Haeffner, of the 17th of December 1947, as Exhibit Number 1. of Johannes Feder, as Exhibit Number 2. the defendant as a member of the Commando 10-B. The first is the affidavit of Erwin Hansen of the 1st of November 1947, Ruehl Document Number 1. This is in Book I. It is the first document in Book I. I offer it as Exhibit Number 3. The affiant had a central position on the Commando 10-B. He was the staff sergeant, as one says, in military language, "the top-kick." He belonged to the commando from its activation until Ruehlls time and beyond that.
the agrrison, Czernowitz. He, Hansen, was with the last column which was commanded by Ruehl, and which arrived in Czernowitz several days after the advance command and the main echelon. Towards the end of the document the witness outlines the tasks of the defendant, Ruehl in the commando as those of an administrative officer, thus, for example, obtaining shelter and housing and supply for the unit, making up the guard roster, caring for commando members, etc. He continues, and I quote a few lines here, it is on page 3, "As far as his assignment went, he had no power of command. To my knowledge, down to the Crimea, Persterer, who was the commando leader, did not have a deputy. Ruehl did not command a subcommando either." I am skipping a sentence now, and I am quoting again, "Ruehl did not have anything to do with the writing of reports. Reports were written or made verbally by the man who was in charge of the platoon or the subcommando, reporting to the chief personally. Apart from this, the leaders of subcommandos were also under the direct command of the commanding officer. Persterer forwarded the reports directly to the higher agency or he compiled summarized report on his own and dictated it to a clerk in his room, During this, neither Ruehl nor anyone else was present. Furthermore, I know that no carbon copies were made nor were any files kept. Persterer had a strong aversion to office organization of any kind. The unit did not have any office whatsoever. The few important papers, as far as they existed at all, were kept by Persterer personally." offered as Exhibit Number 4. This is an affidavit by Karl Kaufmann, of the 1st of November 1947, who likewise belonged to Commando 10B, and who confirms the essential statements of the above-mentioned document, He states especially clearly that in Czernowitz a small advance commando arrived, first of all, and the main echelon of the commando were the commanding officer, and the platoon of the witness followed, and then more small columns followed after each other within a period of 2 to 4 days. The defendant, Ruehl, arrived with the last column, and for this the affiant has a special support for his memory.
At the end of the affidavit the affiant talks about the job of Ruehl in the commando. May I call the attention of the Tribunal to the third last paragraph, and may I quote briefly, "The then ober jturmfuehrer and Criminal Inspector Ruehl, I well remember him. Ruehl was under the command of Persterer for the command of the administrative matters. He had no type of power of command, but he was merely used for administrative matters of all kinds, such as motor repair, billets, supply, and assignment of tasks. As long as Ruehl was with Commando 10 B, Persterer had no deputy. Ruehl did not command a subcommando. Number 5. The commando member, Max Werner, testifies in his affidavit that it was his special task to supply gasoline, spare parts, etc. He confirms that even this task which was actually a matter of administratives to t ake care of was not handled by Ruehl, but that the mission was always assigned by the commando chief personally. He remembers Ruehl who never appeared as the deputy of the commando chief and who did not lead any subcommando.
Ruehl Document Number 4 is offered as Exhibit Number 6. It is the affidavit of Wilhelm Nispel, who is a member of Commando 10 B, advanced or rather arrived in Czernowitz with the last group of this unit, that is, together with Ruehl, at least 4 to 5 days after the main echelon of the commando. About the jobs of the defendant in the commando, this affiant says that Ruehl made out the guard rosters, that he also had to see that the equipment was supplied and, for example, in Czernowitz, he had to set up a shoo repair shop. At the end of the document the witness emphasizes, "I never saw Ruehl as the deputy of the commando chief, and from my comrades I never heard at any time that Ruehl had had such a function. There were also at least one Haupsturmfuehrer and several Sturmfuehrers belonged to the commando. the service of the defendant as a police official before his activity in Commando 10 B. The Tribunal will recall from the defendants' examination on the witness stand that this activity was carried out in the counter intelligence department.
I offer Ruehl Document Number 7 as Exhibit Number 7. The document is on page 19. It is the affidavit of Josef Losse, Losse was export for personnel matters in the main office, security police. Ruehl was known to him first through his papers and later personally. He confirms that Ruehl was a specialist in counter-intelligence matters. ments which concern themselves with the missions of the counter-intelligence corps as part of the police service. Thess two documents are in my Document Book II, and they are listed as Documents 25 and 26. Those are two affidavits which were offered to the IMT and which were admitted by it. One comes from the witness, Schmitz under whom Ruehl served for several years in the counter-intelligence department. I shall come back to this personal contact on the day which will be determined next week, and I shall submit a special affidavit on that subject. I offer these two document Numbers 25 and 26 as Exhibits Number S and 9. As for as the other documents are concerned, these are character testimonials. I want to show the humane conduct of the defendant as well as the manner in which the defendant curried out his service as a police official. I want to show especially with these documents that the conduct of Ruehl towards politically and racially persecuted people was in strong contrast to that attitude which the prosecution has charged the members of an Einsatzkommando. I submit Ruehl Document Number 5 as Exhibit Number 10, on page 14. Your Honors, this is the affidavit of Hermann Bobbe of Luckenwalde. the affiant belongs to the social democratic party since 1912 and since 1929 he has been a leader of the Marxist organization of the Reichsbanner in Luckenwalde, which is the home town of the defendant. Bobbe has known the defendant since he was 20 years old. He emphasizes that despite contrary political attitude he always discussed matters with him objectively, that Ruehl was not one-sided and was not an agitator, and that publicly he had always conducted himself beyond reproach. He confirms furthermore that Ruehl, when the affiant was politically persecuted in 1933, had supported him considerably and especially saved him from being confined to the Oranienburg concentration camp.
The summary of the judgment in the last sentence of the affidavit shows that Ruehl, to be sure, was his political opponent, but that as such he had to respect him as well as he had to respect him as a man.
DR. LINCK (continued) I further offer Ruehl Document #6 as Exhibit #11. This is the affidavit of Justice Secretary Kurt Hoeche also from Luckenwalde. Under this affiant the defendant had allegedly been active as an employee in the District Court in Luckenwalde without exercising any function or pressure as member of the Nazi Party or the SA or without spying on his colleagues or denouncing them. The witness emphasizes that his wife is Jewish and that the entire family, therefore, had to suffer from chicanery of military authorities. That he did, therefore, not support any National socialists who are war criminals or guilty of any type of offense. As far as the last two documents are concerned I may point out that I consider them very strong evidence because it was possible for me to obtain them from the Russian Zone and because it is less customary for them that Anti-Fascist should exonerate a former Nazi. The other documents concern themselves merely with the time in which the defendant was temporarily director of the State police in Augsburg after he had completed his training and after he had obtained his first somewhat independent position and therefore was able to act with some independence. These affidavits were made out particularly by collaborators of the defendant, partly from affiants with whom he worked together and especially by the racially and political persecuted people whom the defendant helped.
I offer Ruehl Document #8 on page 21 of the book. This is Exhibit 12. It is the affidavit of Josef Brandl of 10 September 1947. Brandl was Police Inspector and had the closest contact with the defendant as director of the executive service. According to this, the defendant never bothered about personal opinions of others and never tried to influence him in Party political sense. Brandl testifies to the tolerant attitude of the defendant, especially in connection with an action which called for the allocation of labor of half Jews and those related to Jews which had been ordered by the entire Reich from Berlin. Contrary to directives and orders from Berlin, Ruehl on his own responsibility excused a number of people from this and thus saved them COURT II CASE IX from labor assignment and its consequence.
The example of a Dr. Fetzer is mentioned especially who had to be assigned immediately, but Ruehl always managed to postpone or suspend his assignment so that Ruehl had considerable unpleasantness since a brother of Dr. Fetzer was assigned for labor by another Gestapo agency. This agency demanded an explanation why Ruehl had not taken the same measures. Hanns Grahammer. He characterizes the defendant in a similar manner as Brandl did. The affiant was an expert for the just mentioned action. The operation, namely this labor assignment of Jews, half Jews and those related to Jews. It was Ruehl's intention to mitigate harshness of this operation and by urgent requests to Berlin he succeeded from the beginning in having all doctors subject to this decree excused from this or, at least, for the time being excused from it. In many other individual cases which Grahammer lists, Ruehl on his own responsibility always exempted those people so that those effected were always saved. These were people from all circles of the population. The regulations that only people who were unfit to work were to be exempted were not observed. The women related to Jews would have had to be used for labor at the place where they lived but this measure was not carried out. Grahammer emphasized the extraordinary risks which Ruehl took with this attitude and he only ascribes it to his clever delaying tactics that he did not suffer any serious consequences. Document 11 as Exhibit 14. It is the affidavit of the former Police President of Augsburg, Wilhelm Stark. Stark got to know Ruehl as an official on whose support one could count when it was a matter of helping endangered people. Stark mentions the example of half Jewish lawyer Kitzinger whom Ruehl had repeatedly exempted from the draft and left him on his job so that Kitzinger was spared until the end of the War. Stark also mentions the case of an officer under his supervision who because of seditious remarks was prosecuted. These utterances had COURT II CASE IX to do with the War which he considered as lost.
Ruehl managed to suspend the proceedings so that no harm came to the person concerned even though he had to count on the fact that the matter might become known.
The next document Ruehl document 12 is offered as Exhibit 15. It was made out by the former Mayor of Augsburg who worked together with Ruehl, as the witness said, in the most loyal manner. Ruehl told that affiant that he would rather have contact with him than with the party because in all cases he wanted to form an objective judgment. This affiant, too, lists a number of individual examples showing how Ruehl conducted himself to Jews who were effected by the action named above to the Reich Security Main Office. He mentioned the Augsburg doctors who were secretly notified so that they could dispose accordingly and be left unharmed. Another example is the case of a Jewish composer professor Plechler who, if I may add this here, had just given the premiere of a new opera according to press reports recently. Piechler had fled and was hiding. On the basis of Ruehl's promises to notify the affiant immediately in case Piechler would be threatened by a new danger, the composer was able to return. This affiant, too, says that Ruehl was able to get around orders of the RSHA on his own risk.
I furthermore offer Ruehl Document 13 as Ruehl Exhibit 16. The former Gauleiter Karl Wahl summarizes the attitude of the defendant Roehl as far as the efforts are concerned which have been mentioned before, and I quote one sentence: "He went to the extreme and although I protected him in individual cases, he always exposed himself to danger of being rebuked by Himmler since Himmler was very strict in those matters as was well known." a collaborator of the above mentioned Gauleiter Karl Wahl, a man by the name of Fritz Thierbach, It concerns itself with the question of a certain Otto Zauner who had received a forcible consignment order to report at a camp. Ruehl had this order revoked and thus was consistent in his tolerant and helpful attitude as the affiant observes.
DR. LINCK(continued) : Ruehl Document 15 is the affidavit of Kurt Muehlen and is submitted as Exhibit 18. The affiant is a confidence man of the CIC in Augsburg. In his former capacity as a plant guard he had considerable official contact with Ruehl. He summarizes his judgment saying that Ruehl did not have the inclination to participate in an extermination program. He bases his opinion, above other things, on the question, of a half Jew named Spieler, who had been drafted into a work camp of the OT. In order to escape this, he was called to Berlin by Ruehl under the pretext that missing family papers had to be obtained. As had been discussed with Ruehl previously, he did not return from there and thus he escaped further persecution.
The next document No. 16 is offered as Exhibit 19 and is the affidavit of Heinrich Riehm. It is reported how Ruehl disclosed to this affiant that the order of the RSHA also effected the leading directors of MAN (machine factory in Augsburg) - Nuernberg. Ruehl willingly listened to what the affiant had to say, reported to Berlin accordingly in order to gain time for those people effected and when Berlin was stubborn as expected, about it he postponed the draft on his own responsibility so that finally these racial victims were saved beyond the time of the collapse. from among the effected, the victims themselves and I submit Ruehl Document 17 as Ruehl Exhibit 20. Dr. Hans Fetzer as also-called non-Aryan, mixed off-spring, was on the list of those who were to be consigned to a camp. To his surprise, he did not receive the expected order and he heard that he had to thank the defendant Ruehl for that. In personal contact with the defendant Ruehl the affiant gained the impression that here the defendant acted in human sympathy and that despite the general order of the RSHA, Ruehl knew how to postpone his transport in such a way that the affiant remained free until the occupation troops arrived. ment 19 as Exhibit 21. The affiant had a Jewish employee, Bertold Auerbach, who was to be transported, too.
After all efforts of the affiant had proved in vain, he turned directly to the defendant Ruehl, found complete human understanding and succeeded in having Ruehl revoke this order.
The next document 20 is offered as Exhibit 22. In this the affiant, Harms Ritter, confirms, and he is active here as Landgerichtsdirektor, that Ruehl supported him and his Jewish wife even though the latter were expressly declared to be fit for work by the District Medical Officer and even though general orders of the Reich Security Main Office were present, Ruehl furnished a dentist's certificate and on this weak basis he managed to postpone the transport of this couple on his own responsibility. Ritter especially emphasizes that he and his wife were complete strangers to the defendant and that the help which he offered was not given from a personal view point. Kitzinger mentioned above, a half Jew of the first degree, mentioned how Ruehl tried to protect him from being sent to a work camp which was very similar to a concentration camp even though the application to Berlin was refused as could be expected. The matter was postponed in such a way that Kitzinger was spared. a Police persecutee by the name of Karl Wernthaler who already was in prison in 1933 and after that was in concentration camp Dachau and after his release from Dachau he was under police supervision until the end of the War. Today he is president of the Social Democratic Municipal Council fraction in Augsburg. He confirms that during the time Ruehl was competent for him, he suffered no persecution. and I offer document 18 as Exhibit 25. It was made out by the wife of a painter named Strupp who had been persecuted for political reasons by the Third Reich after he had spent a lengthy time in a concentration camp in 1933 already.
Strupp was again arrested in April 1944 because of suspicion of espionage and undermining remarks and had been handed over to the courts. Frau Strupp was refused any hearing from all the competent court authorities and finally turned to Ruehl with the request to do something to got her husband released. Ruehl asked for the court records and finally made it possible for the witness to apply to the Justice authorities in Munich and he also personally helped her and her husband. The proper political agencies were indignant about the fact that he disregarded his competence, and the district attorney was just as indignant. The affiant was told that the good offices of the State Police Agencies for her husband were not looked upon with any favor. Ruehl himself was reprimanded. Nevertheless he continued to help the family Strupp. Document Book and I offer it as Exhibit 26. It comes from an employee of the Augsburg office of the defendant. Her name is Marie Luise Henning and it is concerned with the human and professional conduct of the defendant Ruehl as superior. The affiant mentions particularly complaints of various private firms to the effect that Ruehl did not take sufficient action against some people who broke contracts without these complaints having any effect on the defendant at all. The affiant finally reports the judgment which the CIC officer gave here who was in charge with investigating members of the State Police in Augsburg. This said that he was amazed about the leadership of the Augsburg State Police and it was a pity that Ruehl did not have any other profession. reserve the right to submit 1, 2, or 3 further documents next week when the Tribunal reconvenes.
THE PRESIDENT: That right will be reserved.
Mr. Walton.
MR. WALTON: May it please the Tribunal, to those portions of the documents in Document Book I which are character affidavits of the defendant Ruehl, of course, the Prosecution does not object. However, as to his official duties and to his activities in Augsburg after he returned to Russia the Prosecution does enter an objection on the grounds of immateriality. In Document Book II, document 25, being the affidavit of Reinhold Aust, we believe this document to be immaterial In that it gives the activities of Department Ia in Augsburg of the Political Police, the Police Abwehr, and the Gestapo Abwehr. The document then concludes with the lament that old civil servants should not be removed just because the former government has changed which is completely irrelevant and immaterial to the issue. of Dr. Hans Schmitz, being Ruehl Document 26. It is corroborative of the Aust affidavit just mentioned and it contains justification of the Abwehr Police activities and shows cooperation between the Dutch officials and the State Police and it is certainly, we believe, immaterial and irrelevant.
THE PRESIDENT: which counsel will be ready this afternoon to present document books? Any who are here now? Apparently not.
DR. LINCK for Ruehl; As to the objections of the Prosecution, I would like to say only the following. I have submitted the affidavits of Schmitz and Aust to show not what jobs the Gestapo Counter-Expionage had, but the Counter-Expionage in the Police before 1933 and afterwards, namely, the sane tasks, and in order to show that I am not of the opinion of the Prosecution that every member of an Einsatzkommando was born to be such, as the Prosecution claims in the Indictment or makes it seem.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you refute tie thought that Kommando leaders like poets are born and not made?
DR. LINCK: They concern themselves with jobs of Police officials of CIC, the job which my client had and from which he was turned away at the time he served with the Einsatzkommando during his studios at the university.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, be have a list here which would indicate that document books are ready in the cases of Fendler, Jost, Naumann, Radetzky, Sandberger, Schulz, Seibert and Strauch. Now the attornies in those cases ought to be here this afternoon with those books.
MR, WALTON: Your Honor, I don't know about the others but I have only gotten one document book on the defendant Seibert. I haven't been served with Document Book II yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, do you have any document books presented by the defense which are ready now for submission in court?
MR. WALTON: I can only answer for those in Einsatzgruppe D, that is what I am attempting to do. I have one on Seibert and I was under the impression it had already been presented by Dr. Gawlik. As to Document Book II, I have not received, Whatever your list says - I don't know.
THE PRESIDENT: This list says they are in translation but since I received the list several days ago I assumed by this time they were ready. Mr. Ferencz, do you have any outstanding defense document books that have not yet been presented in open court that you know of?
MR. FERENCZ: I believe there are sons, your Honor, which I received in German and not the English copies yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Secretary General please immediately after we recess this morning inquire at the Defense Information Center as to what document books are now ready and sec to it that counsel who may present books, will report to the Tribunal when we reconvene.
Dr. Aschenauer, may I ask a question, please of you.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Pardon me - wrong earphone.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, in order that we may develop a schedule beforehand as to the presentation of summation arguments we would like to get an idea of the length of time you believe you will require in order to present your summation. Do you think that the morning of Monday February 2 would be sufficient for you to present your entire summation?
DR. ASCHENAUER: No, I would say that my final plea will take more than 120 pages and that the whole day will be taken up with it.
THE PRESIDENT: Pretty long speech.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes, and considerable large problems are treated in it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Are you going to be here this afternoon, Dr. Aschenauer?
DR. ASCHENAUER: I shall come back here at 1:30.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, during the recess time we will discuss this among ourselves so that we can work out a schedule, so if you will be here at 2o'clock, we can discuss this anew.
The Tribunal will new be in recess until 2 o'clock.