2 Feb 1948_M_MSD_11_1_Arminger (Hildesheimer)
DR. GAWLIK: Now, I submit Nauman Document No. 19, Exhibit Nauman No. 14, page 28 to 31 of the Document Book. This is an extensive report concerning the introduction of the new agricultural statute, terminating the system of communal management and the re-intorudction of private owenership.
In this connection, I also submit Nauman Document No. 20, which will receive Exhibit No. 15, on page 32 to 39 of the Document Book. Here is an extensive report which goes into detail about the so-called tax detail system, the regulation of taxes and finances within the Einsatzgruppe B, the foundation of new bank institutes. From this report, it also becomes evident that the activity constituted great difficulties. From the bulk of reports received, concerning all spheres, I selected these three reports and introduce them as evidence. There is a bulk of such documents and reports which we could have submitted in order to give an extensive and exhaustive impression of Nauman's activity. These three reports, which I have submitted are typical reports of the three particular spheres of assignments. From these reports Nauman's activities become evidents in the carrying out of these measures, Nauman's work was absolutely necessary. He had to deal personally with these tasks, he personally,just as much as in anti-partisan operations, but his collaboration in the carrying out of the Hitler Order, which was issued before Naumann's time of activity was not necessary. Therefore, Nauman's statements should be credible that he did not take part in carrying out these executions, and he did not even collaborate.
The further documents which I submit concern Nauman's attitude and behavior in Holland. These documents also are to support Nauman's statements and they are to support his credibility to the effect that he did not take part in executions. They have a second purpose: If the Tribunal should hold the opinion that Nauman collaborated and participated in executions. These further documents are supposed to prove that Nauman really acted on the basis of Hitler's Order which he 2 Feb 1948_M_MSD_11_2_Arminger (Hildesheimer) had to carry out as he was a soldier himself.
But if anyone believes that he did participate, this shows that he would not have carried out these measures, if this order had not existed which he rejected instinctively. This becomes evident from Naumann's behavior in Holland, where such an order was not given. And this material has a third purpose, namely to refute the Prosecution's rebuttal Document 236. I want to draw the special attention of the Tribunal to the fact that these statements were made by official Dutch agencies, namely, the Dutch Red Cross. These are passages from Naumann Document Book II and they are contained in Document No. 9, which is Exhibit Nauman No. 16. It is page 9 to 10, and Document Nauman No. 10, which will receive Exhibit No. Nauman No. 17, it is on page 11 to 12. These two agents and representatives of the Dutch Red Cross have furthermore also made out affidavits contained in Document Book IV. It is Nauman No. 21, offered as Exhibit Nauman No. 18, pages 40 to 41 of Document Book No. IV, and Naumann No. 22, which will receive now Exhibit No, 19, pages 42 to 43.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, I don't have IV, Dr. Gawlik.
(To the Secretary General) Do you have a copy of IV?
MR. NAB: No, I haven't, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you certain that it was translated and mimeographed?
DR. GAWLIK: I have not received the translation, Your Honor, but I assumed that the translation had been submitted by this morning to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: How many documents are there in there, Dr. Gawlik?
DR. GAWLIK: Document Book IV has five affidavits. The document book itself contains seven pages.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWAL: If the Tribunal please, inasmuch as it is obvious that Mr. Ferencz has not received the document book, and I do not know any details about whether he wants me to make objections against some of these documents, it would possibly be better if Dr.
Gawlik could postpone his presentation of the document book until after the mid-day recess. I shall try to contact Mr. Ferencz. If Dr. Gawlik will or can furnish me with a German copy. I shall take these documents up with Mr. Ferenz and then I can tell the Tribunal whether we are objecting against these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean, Document Book IV?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: This Document Book which does not exist, Document Book No. IV.
THE PRESIDENT: Would that be agreeable to you, Dr. Gawlik?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, Your Honor. I agree to this arrangement.
THE PRESIDENT: Is some other defense counsel ready?
DR. GAWLIK: I still have to submit my document books for Seibert.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, yes.
DR. GAWLIK (Attorney for the Defendant Seibert): May I first ask whether Document Book Seibert No. II and III have been submitted to the Tribunal in English?
MR. NAB: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you please get mine?
You may proceed, Dr. Gawlik.
DR. GAWLIK: First I submit documents which are to prove the activity of Seibert in the staff of Einsatzgruppe D. There is first of all Document Seibert No. 30. In volume II, pages 41 to 42, and will receive Exhibit No. 27. This is an affidavit of Dr. Roessner. From this document the assignments and activities of Seibert in the Group Staff become evident, especially the fact that Seibert during his assignment in Einsatzgruppe D was only the Chief of Department III and had to make out reports about the domestic spheres. Furthermore, in order to prove that Seibert was not the deputy of Ohlendorf, this has been submitted. This becomes evident from paragraph 2 of the affidavit and it cannot be deduced from the facts that Seibert 2 Feb 1948_M_MSD_11_4_Arminger (Hildesheimer) signed reports with I.V. -- that is "for". This does not prove in fact that he was the deputy of Ohlendorf for the entire group.
Roessner is acquainted with the conditions in the agencies which concerned Ohlendorf and he knows that Ohlendorf made a special arrangement, as he never appointed a deputy for all the tasks and the departmental deputies had to sign "for" on matters concerning the department they were in charge of during Ohlendorf's absence.
I furthermore now submit Seibert Document No. 28, which is in Volume II. It will receive Exhibit No. 28. It is in Document Book II, page 39. It is the affidavit of Beckhof, a personnel official in Office III during the war. He also says that Seibert worked in the Staff as the Departmental Chief of Office III and only in this capacity and that he was not the Deputy Chief of Einsatzgruppe D.
Now I submit and offer Document Seibert No. 29, which will receive Exhibit No. 29 in Volume II, page 40. Here we have an affidavit of a general, a former general, von Halder concerning the signatures of staff functionaries. This document has been submitted in order to prove the significance of a signature on a report within the armed forces. From the affidavit of this man von Halder, it becomes evident that responsibility was assumed for the report when signing it only inasfar as the compilation of reports was concerned, that it had been done in an orderly manner from the original reports, but it does not necessarily mean that the events actually occurred and that the responsibility is actually assumed for the carrying out of the operations.
I now submit as Document Seibert No. 36, Volume IV, Exhibit 30, which is on page 51. It is an affidavit -
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, Dr. GAWLIK. Volume IV, Mr. Nab, is it available?
MR. NAB: IV?
THE PRESIDENT: IV, Seibert No. IV.
MR. NAB: II and III are all.
2 Feb 1948_M_MSD_11_5_Arminger (Hildesheimer)
DR. GAWLIK: We will come to it at a later point. to the SD organization, and I submit in this connection Seibert Documents No. 27, Volume II, which will now receive Exhibit No. 30. It is on page 38 of Volume II. Document Seibert No. 33 from Volume III, pages 45 and 46, which I shall give Exhibit No. 31 and Document Seibert No. 34 from Volume III, which will receive Exhibit No. 32, Volume III, pages 47 to 48. From these documents. Exhibits 30 and 31, the activity of Seibert becomes evident in Office III and it becomes especially evident from Document 27, exibit 30 that this activity was in no way secret or camouflaged. Document Seibert No. 34, and affidavit by Dr. Ehlich with a sketch which has been included. The correctness of this sketch has been certified to in the affidavit under oath Dr. Ehlich. This sketch gives us a picture of the difference between the SD Dews Information Service and the SS Special Formation SD, two personnel organizations Which are easily confused.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the prosecution objects against this document. The question before the Tribunal is only whether Seibert was a member of the SD or not. What the SD is and which formations of the SD belong to the criminal organization SD was decided by the International Military Tribunal. The offering of evidence as to the question of which one of the formations of the SD might have been criminal and which were not is immaterial in this trial.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, you know that the only tests to be be made in connection with membership in the SD are: Was the defendant actually a member? Was he a voluntary member, and being a member, was he aware of the criminal activities of that organization? Now, if this document goes to anyone of these three criteria, then it would be relevant, but if it merely goes to argue that the SD or some part of it was not criminal, then you run counter to what is already res adjudicata.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, this concerns the third count of the indictment whether he was aware of the criminal activities of the SD or whether he knew about such an activity.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, if it has to do with whether he knew, then it would be relevant.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I understood the explanation which Dr. Galik gave to the document completely different. He said there are two different types of SD which are different and he wants to show that he was in the type which didn't do a thing, so the explanation of Dr. Gawlik to the document certainly is a different one from the reason why he wants to submit it, so either the document may be ruled out or the explanation may be ruled out, but both cannot stand.
DR. GAWLIK: I wanted to reply the following to this, Your Honor, if the prosecutor would have let me finish, when he would have understood that there is no difference and that my statements are not by any means illogical. What I said here was only the introduction to my statements which was merely the basis for what I was about to say.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, suppose that at the end you make your objection to whatever documents you object to?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal would kindly rule just now on this document, that the document is admitted in evidence only as to the criminal knowledge of criminal activities, the prosecution will certainly be satisfied with this order.
DR. GAWLIK: Unfortunately I am not getting the opportunity to finish my statements, because the document is also relevant concerning the second point which I want to prove concerning the membership of the defendant Seibert in the SS. With this I want to prove that Seibert was not a member of that part of the SS which was described as criminal by the IMT, but he was merely a member of the so-called SS formation SD and in order to clarify this particular point, this special formation, this organization, the SD, was not an organization actually and it did not fulfill all the conditions which would make it an organization in the sense of the statutes and in order to prove to the Tribunal what this special SS formation called "SD" was, that is the second point I wanted to prove with this sketch.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the second reason, of course, is in the same way objectionable as the first reason of Dr. Gawlik. Also this second reason that Dr. Gawlik gives attacks the decision of the International Military Tribunal. Unless I am very much mistaken, I do not think that among those members of the SS which were not members of the criminal organization, the memb ers of the SS formation SD are named in the judgment; in the judgment those formations of the SS which are not to be considered criminal are emphasized. Among those formations the Special Formation SD certainly is not mentioned. I can only repeat my suggestion. If the Tribunal would kindly rule that this document can be admitted only insofar as it is offered to disprove knowledge of criminal activities and nothing else.
DR. GAWLIK: May I say something, Your Honor? It is inaccurate the way in which the prosecutor put it, that only those formations are named in the IMT which are not considered criminal but also those formations are named in the IMT judgment which are considered criminal, because it mentions the general SS, the Waffen SS, or the SS Death Head organizations, the police organizations, as far as the members were members of the SS as well. This special SS formation SD is not mentioned and I should like to point out here the following: This was not done because the IMT did not know about this special SS formation SD. This special SS formation SD was discussed at great length and described in numerous documents, before commissions and before the Tribunal. The Witness Hoepner was heard concerning this. The records proving it can be read, and, as far as I remember, the Witness Hoepn er was examined about the 1 st of august, 1946, by the IMT on the witness stand. If the Tribunal, that is, the IMT, had wanted to declare this SS formation SD organization as criminal, they would have made special mention of the SD when listing those SS formations considered criminal.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, this is entirely argument. If Dr. Gawlik is in a position to prove that in the decision of the International Military Tribunal, the Special Formation SD was not found criminal, he may do so. I do not think that this exhibit as such can prove anything which is found by the International Military Tribunal. The opinion of the judgment speaks for itself. No additional proof can be offered on the part of the Defense Counsel.
DR, GAWLIK: Of course, I will comment on this in detail in my final plea, but I haven't got this opportunity to make these statements in my final arguments concerning this and referring to this document, if this document was not admitted in evidence. I know, of course, these are arguments, but I have to argue now in order to get this document admitted. If the prosecutor -
THE PRESIDENT: In view of the feet that the IMT did indicate some exceptions to the SS formations, certainly counsel should be allowed to show that his client cones within some of those exceptions. At any rate, we will admit the document for the probative value which will be ascertained at a later date.
DR. GAWLIK: Concerning the case in chief, I want to point out the second point which I shall explain. The difference between the SS formation SD and SD Information Service as becomes evident from the chart here the letter was composed of personnel from the Criminal Police , the State Police and the SD, but the Tribunal can see from this chart that only a small part of the SD Information Service Office VI were members of the SS Special Formation SD. Concerning the political attitude we come to the next point, concerning the political attitude and character of Seibert, now I submit Document Seibert 31, page 43 in Document Book II, Exhibit 34, Document Seibert No. 32 in Document Book II, page 44, which will now receive Exhibit No. 35-- I am sorry, the preceding document was 33 and this one is 34, and Document Seibert No. 35, as Exhibit 35 from Volume III, pages 49 through 50.
I draw the special attention of the Tribunal to Documen t Seibert No. 35, Exhibit No. 35, from which Seibert's political attitude and especially his attitude towards the Jewish problem becomes evident. I would like to submit the remainder of the documents which I still have in the afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: Will other counsel be ready to continue with the presentation of document books?
Mr. Hochwald?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I have three or four documents for my colleagues and myself to submit. It will only take five minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:45.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION:
THE HARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. DURCAMOLZ: (For Dr. Mayer and for Dr. Braune.) the session so that he can discuss something in the transcript with his attorney, and I ask that he be brought to Room 57 at once.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Braune will be excused immediately and will be taken to Room 57, so that he may consult with his attorney
A. Thank you,
THE PRESIDENT: You are welcome.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I have been informed that Document Book IV for Naumann and Document Book III for Siebert are now available for the Tribunal. May I now continue?
THE PRESIDENT: Please do. Will you start with Naumann?
DR. GAWLIK: No, I will start with Seibert, because I only have one more document for Seibert.
THE PRESIDENT: Which book is that?
DR. GAWLIK: Document Book IV, page 51, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: All right proceed, please.
DR. GAWLIK: From Document Book IV for Seibert I submit Document No. 36. This receives the Exhibit No. 36. It is in Document Book IV, Seibert, Page 51. Affidavit of Woehler, and I submit it to you as proof that Seibert was not the permanent deputy of the Einsatzgroup Chief; and secondly that the work of Seibert did not include any type of executive measures. This concludes my presentation of documents for Seibert.
I now continue the presentation of documents for Naumann. I stopped with the documents which concerned Naumann's conduct in Holland. The subject matter of these documents have already been listed by me this morning. These documents follow document No. 6. Exhibit No. 5, which is the affidavit of Lily Vander Schalk, who as it is said in her affidavit, was able to establish the conflict in the conscience of Naumann between the choice of his ideals and international decency, as she expressed it.
For this purpose and in order to direct your attention to this point I submit from Document Book Naumann II Document No. 9 as Exhibit No. 16, and Naumann Document No. 10 as Exhibit No. 17. These are pages 9 and 10, and pages 11 to 12 from Volume II. These are statements of official Dutch agencies, namely the Dutch Red Cross; and certain documents from Volume Naumann IV also belong to this, namely document 21, pages 40 to 41, in Volume IV, and Naumann Document 22, which is on pages 42 to 43. These four documents show that first of all Naumann improved the hospital installations in a camp, that he prevented misuses, and that he was able to got the release of the Dutch people who had been held as hostages. These documents also show which is to receive special consideration here, that in these camps in as far as the hostages were concerned, Naumann was not competent for this. Naumann, therefore, did everything that was in his power and more than what he did he could not do considering his position 13.
I submit this as Exhibit No. 20. This document shows that Naumann was able to get the release of a dutchman who had been arrested because he favored Jews. This particular document shows Naumann's attitude toward the Jewish question. 21. This is the affidavit of the dutchman, Dr. K. J. Frederiks, the former Secretary General in the Ministry of the Interior. This document shows that Naumann, first of all, saved four Dutchmen who had been sentenced to death. Secondly, that he prevented the conviction of six Dutch mayors, and thirdly, that he got several Dutch mayors released from custody. This document is the proof for Naumann's attitude towards the population in a German occupied territory.
From Document Book IV I submit Naumann documents 23 to 25. I submit Naumann Document 23, pages 44 to 45 as Exhibit No. 22. Document 25 on page 47, I submit as Exhibit No. 23. These are affidavits of Lagos and Woelk. Both confirm the statements of the Dutch Led Cross about Naumann's resistance against all measures of oppression. It is furthermore shown how Naumann, by going beyond his competence and his power, intervened against the abuses in the camps, and that furthermore as far as he saw any injustices during his inspection trips he immediately intervened against them. Exhibit 24. This is the affidavit of Rauter, which confirms the statement about Naumann's intervention against the abuse in the camps. Especially Naumann saw to it that the camp commandant was arrested, indicted and convicted. That concludes my presentation for Naumann.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, who is next?
DR. BELZER: (For the defendant Graf) Your Honor, one of the presiding judges of these trials has said once it was the right of defense counsel to forgot something once, and I made use of this right when I inspected the transcript of 15 January this year, and I established that during my presentation I forgot to submit Document Graf No. 20.
Therefore, the exhibit number 18 which was supposed to be given to this was left open. I would like to use this opportunity to make up for this, and herewith declare that I have now submitted Graf Document 20 as Exhibit No. 18.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. LUMMERT (For the defendant Blume): Your Honor, I ask that I may be permitted to offer the four remaining documents for the defendant Blume. Those are Blume documents 31 to 34. The Prosecution has received these documents last Thursday in English and in German. These documents are to be attached to Volume II for Blume, and are to be attached to this volume, and I assume they are available to the Tribunal. The Index on page 3, of Document Book II. The first document is Document 31, the affidavit of the Witness Kunz. It is on page 74 of Document Book II. This affidavit contains two examples of the excellent leadership of the defendant Blume as police officer in Greece. Kunz at the time belonged to the agency of the Police Headquarters of General Shimana. Shimana was superior to the defendant Blume. On page 74 an example is listed, according to which the defendant Blume immediately took measures against a camp leader, Radonski, when the leader misbehaved himself, and that Blume appointed a certain man by the name of Fischer as successor for Radonski, who was good natured and unpretentious and the opposite of his predecessor Radonski. On page 75 at the bottom and the top of page 76, is another example. Here Blume complains General Shimana about a certain Dr. Begus, when he carried out seizures and arrests to which he was not entitled according to Blume's idea. was present when Kaltenbrunner, the Chief of the RSH A, represented General Shimana that he and Blume had practiced Greece policy, but not German policy. This, I think, is typical of the correct condition of defendant Blume in Greece.
The nex document, No. 32, is an affidavit of the witness Pinder, and this affidavit supplements the preceeding one in which the affiant Pinder know some details about the cases of Radonski and Dr. Begus; even better than the affiant Kunz.
Therefore, I offer this document.
The next Document, No. 33 -
THE PRESIDENT: Are you giving the exhibit numbers?
DR. LUMMERT: Your Honor, the exhibit numbers are again the same as the document numbers.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. That is a good system.
The next document No. 33 is an affidavit of the witness Haefner. It is on Page 60 of Document Book II. When I examined the defendant Blume on the witnessstand, that was on redirect examination, the defendant Blume mentioned that he was once put in a position to be obliged to carry out the so-called Fuehrer Order, but that he had succeeded in preventing the carrying out because the circumstances at the time were particularly favorable, so that he was able to prevent the carrying out of the order. It was the question of three English sergeant who had been taken prisoner in Greece. They had conducted end been active in the partisan combat. I don't think I have to read the affidavit. The details are evident on Pages 80 and 81.
As the last document No. 34 I offer an affidavit of the defendant Blume himself. Here he makes some supplementary remarks about the kommando case about which the affiant Haefner has reported in Document 33. This concludes my presentation of Documents. for several pages in the transcript. I merely wanted to make sure that I will have time for this before the final pleas are concluded.
THE PRESIDENT: You will have that time.
DR. LUMMERT: Thank you.
DR. ULMER: Dr. Ulmer for Six. Supplements A and B. As the first document I would like to submit Document No. 68, IV A, an affidavit of Dr. Emil Augsburg, of the 25th of January, 1948. He is a former research Chief assistant.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed please.
DR. ULMER: I would like to ask that this document be admitted with the Exhibit No. 48. Because of the submission of Document Book III before Document Book II a mistake arose in the numbering of exhibits and the exhibit number 48 regained open. I don't know whether the Secretary General has get this correct now.
cerned with the, subject matter A which concerns the advance Kommando Moscow. This affidavit by Augsburg is a clarification to the various statements of the date made by the witness Vetter who was heard recently in cross-examination about the return of Dr. Six from Smolensk.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the prosecution objects against the submission of this affidavit and of all affidavits which are intended to impeach the witness Vetter. The Tribunal certainly will recall that the witness Vetter is a witness of the defense and not of the prosecution. The prosecution has only used its right to cross-examine this witness. Whatever has transpired from this cross-examination is testimony of a witness of the defense. It, therefore, seems inadmissible that defense itself now offers proof that the testimony of its own witness was not correct.
DR. ULMER: Your Honor, I consciously did not say that I would impeach the statements of the witness Vetter, but I would like to clarify the difference here. Before the witness Vetter appeared I have at least submitted eight or nine affidavits about this date which gave 20 August as the return date. After the witness Vetter had been heard here I had the witness Alander appear here and whatever the witness Alander testified was the 20th of August must be correct, and that the witness Vetter believed something differently when she told you about what she did on the witness stand. I don't want to impeach the witness Vetter. I merely want to offer a few affidavits about this subject, the return of Six on the 20th of August.
MR HORLICK-Hochwald: May I draw the attention of the Tribunal to the different documents. The first one is Six Document No. 68, and if the Tribunal looks into the second paragraph the Tribunal will see that there is direct reference made to the witness Vetter. If the Tribunal looks now -
THE PRESIDENT: What page did you say?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: This is Supplement B, Document No. 68, your Honor. This is the newest document, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes, I see it.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Second paragraph of the affidavit. If the Tribunal turns now to the document book which is Document Book No. IV, the first document is a document - it is an affidavit of Mrs. Six. In the first line of this document the name of Mrs. Vetter again is mentioned.
DR. ULMER: Your Honor, may I ask that the objections against my documents will be mentioned only after I nave submitted them. At the moment I am submitting Document 68, Augsburg, and I shall offer the other documents later. Perhaps I can bring then altogether. It is correct what Mr. Hochwald says that they do concern themselves with this subject. Perhaps Mr. Hochwald can then present his objections altogether after I have submitted then.
THE PRESIDENT: The Very well, proceed.
DR. ULMER: This affiant of this affidavit Document 68, Dr. Emil Augsburg, confirms that Veronika Vetter, immediately after the artillery fire and before the arrival of the staff of Einsatzgruppe B, had already started to work for the Advance Kommando Moscow, in Smolensk, furthermore, that the witness, namely this Dr. Augsburg, conducted investigations concerning the whereabouts of the university professor Vetter for weeks, and that the witness informed Dr. Augsburg of the results only after the departure of Dr. Six. I do not want to show any more with this affidavit than merely a more exact establishment of the dates which were given generally by the witness Vetter. The witness Vetter referred to a group which moved into one wing after she had already been there,of which she believed to be able to presume that it was the Nebe group with Nebe and in order to make these references more clear, make these more precise, I have had this affidavit made out by a notary public.
As Exhibit No. 59 I offer Document No. 59, an affidavit of the wife of the defendant Six, dated 21st of January 1948. This affidavit contains the preliminary discussions of Frau Six, upon my request at that time, in Stuttgart, together with the witness Vetter, and the statement of how it came about that the witness Vetter, when making out the affidavit for me mentioned this 20th of August as the date for the return trip of Dr. Six from Smolensk.
And the affidavit as such is a confirmation of the affiant from her own knowledge that Six was already in Berlin again on the 23rd of August 41, and sometime later was in Hannover with the affiant.
The Document No. 60 is offered as Exhibit No, 60. It was made up by the former secretary of the defendant, Miss Ilse Richter, from Berlin, The affidavit was given en the 10th of December '47. It confirms that Six went to Hannover end of August '41 in order to take his wife to the hospital.
As Document No. 61 with the Exhibit No. 61 I offer the official confirmation of the hospital of the German Red Cross, Sisterhood Clementinenhaus in Hannover, of the 25th of September '47. This contains the fact that Frau Six was admitted to the hospital on the 1st of September '41. T is admission into the hospital is the memory support of Frau Six for her own definite knowledge about the return of her husband to Germany in August 1941.
I offer Document 62 as Exhibit 62. It is in affidavit made out by the former assistant and collaborator of the defendant, Dr. Horst Mahnke, on the 19th of January '48. This affidavit confirms that the affiant has made out the original of No-58055 submitted by the prosecution in Document Book V-B, Ex. 241 for Mrs. Vetter personally. The affiant states that the heading "Vorkommando Moscow of Einsatzgruppe'B" is to be explained as follows: After Professor Six's departure from Smolensk on 20th of August 1941 the chief of the EinsatzgruppeB, Nebe, carried out his previous effort to get the Moscow Vorkommando under his command. During Six's presence the Vorkommando Moscow was independent from the Einsatzgruppe. Furthermore, in case of Six's presence at this time he would have himself signed this as the chief of Vorkommando Moscow.
Document No. 63, offered as Exhibit No. 63, is made up by the same affiant, Dr. Horst-Mahnke. It was made out on the 19th of January, 1943. Herein it is confirmed that the widow of the university professor, Veronika Vetter, already did service with the Advance Kommando Moscow in Smolensk on the 12th of August 1941, since she was able to get china and table cloths for professor Six's birthday party -- and that in thefinal days of August 1941, possibly on the 23rd of august which is mentioned in her diary, she was given a car b the VKM in order to bring her supplies from her evacuation village.
As Exhibit 64 I offer Document No, 64. This is an official confirmation of the Mayor Korntal dated 19th of January 1948. This document tells us that the child of Veronika Vetter, by the name of Ingebord Vetter, was born on the 22nd of April 1940 in Dresden, Saxony. I went to confirm the student of the witness in her affidavit by this affidavit namely that she had returned to Smolensk with her 12 months old child. In order to make this exact I am giving the birthdate of this child. These were the documents against which the prosecutor objected before. Therefore, I shall stop now in order to let Mr. Hochwald object.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, from the presentation of defense counsel it is absolutely clear that all those documents are introduced in order to impeach the testimony of his own witness. Furthermore, I want to draw the attention of the Tribunal to Document No. 59. That is the first document in the Document Book No. IV. This is an affidavit of Mr. Six. As we are in no position to cross-examine Mrs. Six as she is a close relative of Dr. Six and cannot be compelled by us for cross-examination, this document in itself is inadmissible.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, do you think that that very well known rule of law might be modified in view of the fact that she presents an affidavit?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: We have not been told by defense counsel that she is waiving this right, your honor. We didn't hear anything.
THE PRESIDENT: The wife of a defendant may not be compelled to disclose any evidence which would be inimical to the interests of her husband, but when she voluntarily presents herself to testify in his behalf, then, of course, who voluntarily submits herself to crossexamination and thereby waives that immunity which is given her by the law.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Am I to understand then that she can be called for cross-examination any time?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we submit that to you for your consideration and for Dr. Ulmer's consideration, It may be that he would not want to insist on the affidavit if it entails a cross-examination of the affiant.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: May I assume Your Honors, then that she would be compelled to answer to every question put to her by prosecution in the sane way as a witness not related to defendant?
THE PRESIDENT: As any other witness if she voluntarily subjects herself to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal knowing that she had the immunity against testifying, then she necessarily must submit to whatever court procedure requires, and court procedure, of course, includes cross-examination.