You spoke clearly and outlined the situation. New if you will just take hold of yourself
A I don't get it all
THE PRESIDENT: if you will just determine to answer, I am sure that you can. It's that you then lose control or interest but if you just will hard enough I am confident that you can answer the questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you willing to answer our questions?
THE PRESIDENT: And you know that you are a defendant in this trial.
THE PRESIDENT: And you know that you are charged with very serious crimes.
A Well, I don't know if this applies to my case.
THE PRESIDENT: wELL, whether it is true or not has not been decided, and the only way we can determine whether these very serious version. effort to give the right --
THE PRESIDENT: The right answers. Yes. Now you will have an opportunity to rest for an hour and a half and then you will be brought back to the courtroom and at that time we want you to answer the questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Because it is to your own benefit that you understand and answer these questions because otherwise these charges remain against you unanswered.
THE PRESIDENT: you understand that. Very well. The Tribunal will be in recess until two o'clock.
(The hearing reconvened at 1415 hours, 13 January 1948.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. DURCHHOLZ (ATTORNLY FOR THE DEFENDANT SCHULZ): Your Honor, I would like the Defendant Schulz to be excused tomorrow the whole day, because I want to prepare the rest of his defense.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
DR. KLINNERT (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT SEIBERT): Your Honor, I have the same request concerning the Defendant Seibert.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Seibert will also be excused tomorrow.
MR. GLANCY: May it please the Tribunal, the prosecution would appreciate some information from the two attorneys who just requested the excuse of their clients as to when they intend to put in their document books.
THE PRESIDENT: We had assumed that practically all document books were already in and, if they are not, this comes as a disappointment to the Tribunal because certainly we have frequently informed counsel of the necessity of getting in these books at once. Now do the defense counsel who have just addressed the Tribunal have anything to offer in connection with Mr. Glancy's question?
DR. KLINNERT (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANTS NAUMAN AND SEIBERT): Your Honor, the documents for Nauman and Seibert have still to be submitted. so far, it has been impossible because the translation has not been concluded yet. I do hope, though, that we shall be in a position tomorrow to submit the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Then they are already prepared. It is only a question of translation. Is that what I understand?
DR. KLINNERT: They are in the Translation Department.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. DURCHHOLZ (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT SCHULZ) Your Honor, I have submitted three volumes of document books and there are only a few documents which have been found later which are in the Translation COURT II CASE IX Department at the moment.
I may perhaps point out that the translation in the Translation Department takes a long time. That is the reason why I have not submitted them all yet, but I shall do so very soon.
THE PRESIEDNT: Mr. Glancy, there were a number of Schulz books presented.
MR.GLANCY: The reason I made that request was so that it would facilitate the prosecution in learning as to when and in what order the defense counsel had approximately agreed upon presenting their documents formally into evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. GLANCY: Would would appreciate it if perhaps we could get some word from the defense as to which order they desire to present their books.
THE PRESIDENT: Just as soon as we finish this case and we take up Dr. Aschenauer's documentation, we will go into the whole subject of document books.
MR. GLANCY: Thank you very much.
DR SCHWARZ (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT JOST): Your Honor, in order to make it possible for the Tribunal to dispose of their time, I may point out that so far I have been unable to submit document books. I have not concluded them, in fact, because unfortunately three affidavits have been received too late. Therefore the document book is still in the Translation Division. I think it would be a good thing if I submit all my document books together. Therefore, I would like to be permitted to submit my document books on Thursday or Friday of this week.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Now, Dr. Gick and Defendant Strauch, the Tribunal will call to the attention of both the defendant and counsel that an examination was made during the recess period of the defendant and it appears from the examination that the defendant is able to grasp questions and to answer. The examination was made by a psychiatrist from the Army hospital in Nurnberg. His affliction of itself does not becloud his brain or his mind or his memory. He may have some little difficulty, but nothing like COURT II CASE IX that which he manifested this morning, so far as medical reports are concerned at any rate.
So now we want to call to your attention, Strauch, that this is your one day in court. It is entirely up to you. If you don't want to answer the questions, if you want to make answers about China, that's up to you, but we would recommend to you that you confine your answers to Russia. That is where you are supposed to have committed these crimes. That is what you are charged with, and this is your day in court. Now, it is up to you. If you don't want to answer, then the Tribunal will dispose of the case without your answers. It seems rather extraordinary to the Tribunal that you would suddenly lose you memory just as you come into the court room. You were perfectly able to handle yourself up to a couple of weeks ago, so we again put it to you. It is up to you. You are on your own. The Tribunal has given you fair warning. Now, you will proceed, please. BY DR. GICK ( ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT STRAUCH):
Q. Herr Strauch, we spoke of the Jeckeln Action in Riga.
A. I am sorry, I haven't understood.
Q. I am asking you on what day and what year the Jeckeln Operation was carried out in Riga.
A. The Jeckeln situation took place -- took place -- in the year 19 -- 19 -- I think 1913 or !14 -- O, I mean !40.
Q. Where were you on that day when that operation was carried out in Riga?
A. Yes, the matter was as follows: I don't want to give a figure. I merely want to recollect the conditions. I sat - I was sitting in Riga, whereupon two noncommissioned officers arrived at my place and told me -- asked me where I was after Jeckeln -- or, at least, they asked for Jeckeln or, rather, his deputy. They were in the anti-room and they asked "what has happened? What is about to happen? Upon what order?" Actually it was all about a number of Jews who were to be killed. That was the answer. They said that Strauch is about and they COURT II CASE IX were to go to him, although I was ill and my arm was bandaged, or, at least, was in a plaster cast.
Then the medical officer arrived and I said -- and he said that -- that it was not possible to put troops at their disposal, because, first of all, it was too cold and, secondly, there were no people at their disposal for such matters. There were no troops, but we can't assume this task suddenly. There came a discussion and after I had listened to what was being said, I did not know who was speaking at the telephone. I only said that whoever was on the telephone should reassure himself and should quiet down. Anyway, there was nobody present.
None of those who could cause anything was in the office. Then suddenly the telephone conversation went on and nothing could be done in any case. He asked --- well, then I asked him whether I could speak to him, and, he said that there was no necessity to speak to him, I had to follow the orders of the Reichfuehrer, and he was speaking, and wanted this order to be carried out. He was requesting me to do so. He just concluded the telephone conversation, and I realized that he was --- he also said that he was deputy of the Reichfuehrer.
Q. Whom did you speak to on that occasion.
A. I had spoken to "von Demback" ---no, not "von Dembach, the Highest SS and Police Leader, who was the highest SS and Police Leader at that time and that can be immediately established.
Q. Was it Jeckeln?
A. Yes, Jeckeln, that was the name.
Q. What happened to this telephone conversation?
A. After it had been concluded, I sent the teletype message to the General Jeckeln from the Highest SS and Police Leader, and then -- and, of course, to --- a number of teletype messages to Stahlecker concerning --- there was no answer.
Q. What did you say in your message?
A. I said that I was asking for new directives. First, that after now we had not received any replies from Heydrich, and, secondly, that we asked to disregard this order, and that we were refusing to execute the Jews, and that Sandberger --- Stahlecker said that they didn't want to go further, they wanted to go away; they didn't want to play. That was much later than it had been earlier when the directives --- when I had the directives as a Commando-chief to carry out these things.
THE PRESIDENT: witness --
BY DR.GICK:
Q. Did this Jeckeln operation actually take place?
A. Yes, the operation was carried out, that, as I have already said, in February.
Q. What year was that, February of what year?
A. March.
Q. What year, that is what I am asking you?
A. In March.
Q. That was the month, but what year?
THE PRESIDENT: necessary to bother him with it. Now there is no question involved in that. Do you know what year it was? What year was that?
DR. GICK: It was in 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: ALL right. BY DR. GICK:
Q. Do you remember it now?
A. Yes, it was in 19141.
Q. It was in 1941. It was not in February anyway. It was in November. Now Herr Strauch, did you take part in this Jeckeln operation? Did you understand my question?
A. Yes, yes, yes, I did. That whole matter seems in 1941, went to Riga '41 --- I went to '41, and the whole matter, therefore, it must have been discussed in the presence of the Supreme Commander.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, please look at me.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q. You were the commander of Commando-II?
A. No, I was young. I mean I was chief of the Security Police and of the SD in --
Q. Were you Chief of Einsatzcommando-II?
A. Chief of Einsatzcommando II and SD for the united Russia, that is Latvia.
Q. Were you chief of Einsatzcommando-II?
A. No, I never was the Chief of a Einsatzgruppe.
Q. An Einsatz-commander of Einsatzcommando-II? of the security Police Unit and the SD.
Q. Were you Chief of Einsatzcommando-II?
A. No. That was the dispute. That was the separation, the fact that I was not the Chief of the Security Police and SD but --
Q. What was your job in Russia?
A. I was Chief --- Chief of the Security Police, SIPO, and Chief of Einsatzgruppe. You see here there are various matters, the Reich Security Main Office was the Offices I, II, III etc.
Q. Witness --
A. Then there was --
Q. Just a moment, please. When you went to Russia, what position were you given?
A. I was immediately assigned to Einsatz---No, I became the Chief of Einsatzcommando of the SD.
Q. Yes. Was that Einsatzcommando-II? When you first went there you were Chief of the Security Police. Then later on you became Chief of a Commando, is that right, later on?
A. No.
A. No.
Q. You were never a Chief of a Commando?
A. Never, never.
Q. Yes, well, then, as Chief of Security Police, what were your functions?
A. That was assignment as it was mentioned and described by Ohlendorf, and others, that really various bits of intelligence were to be compiled and used, and were to be collected.
Q. That was the SD?
A. NO, that was Australe, that was the Red-Iv; with that I had nothing to do, This is Department - III, but I ever I was the Chief of Department III.
Q. You were then Chief of Department-III?
A. III, yes.
Q. And as Chief of Department - III did you learn of the exe cution of Jews?
A. News were part of Department- III, or part three.
Q. Did you learn of the execution of Jews?
A. no, at that time no Jews were executed.
Q. During all the time that you were in Russia, were any Jews executed to your knowledge?
A. I can pass over that. That I don't Know.
Q. Do you know whether any Jews were executed?
A. I beg your pardon?
Q. Did you participate in the execution of any Jews?
A. No.
Q. You were charged with having supervised, ordered and di rected the killing of Jews?
Q. You are supposed to have done that.
A. You mean to have carried out executions?
Q. That is right. That is right?
A. Not true. That it is documentary matter to me what is said,
Q. There are various documents here which particularly mention the Einsatzcommando-II, of which you were the Chief killed Jews?
A But I was not the Chief. I was not the Chief. I was not made the Chief in 1902. In 1902 I was Chief of - -
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Glancy, will you please point out to me any document or documents where he is referred to as Chief of Einsatzkommando-II.
MR. GLANCY: In Document Book III-A, your Honor, page 20, Document is No-2966. The last paragraphs on the page. The heading is: "Security Police Service Record since 4 November 1941. Leader of EinsatzkommandoLatvia," which is equivalent of Einsatzkommando-II.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let the witness be handed that Document Book III-$ in German language. Do you have the document Dr. Gick?
DR. GICK: Yes, it is just being looked for. I think I have got it.
THE PRESIDENT: all right, show it to the witness. Show it to the witness, please. (Whereupon Dr. Glick shows the document to the witness.)
Q Will you read that?
(Conversation ensues between counsel and witness.)
Q Well, show it to him Dr. Gick, just the short statement.
DR. GICK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, have him sit down and put on his earphones.
Q Strauch, will you read that?
Q Now that is your own personnel record? kommando in Latvia when it is right in your own personnel record? I went away, and I was supposed to go away completely.
Q Were you at any time the Chief of Einsatzkommand-Latvia?
A No. No.
Q Why did this appear in your personnel record? give you voluminous reports which are unclear, which are inaccurate, which are not inaccurate but which are not wrong.
Q But you claim that this is a mistake?
A Yes, I maintain that this is a mistake. I can give you quite a number that are wrong.
Q Well, all right, show us some more mistakes?
A Where it says, 2 or 4/11. That we have. Then it says - -
Q Well, let's be a little more specific. Now further on in the same statement it is declared that since February 1942 you were commander of Security Police and the SD in White Ruthenia, is that correct? Is that correct. Is that correct, witness.
A (No answer.)
THE PRESIDENT: We will suspend the questioning for a moment. Dr. Gick, the Tribunal has decided to do this. To have the defendant Eduard Strauch once more examined psychiatrically, and upon the determination of the examination the Tribunal will decide what to do. We are not entirely convinced up to this moment that this defendant is not capable of understanding you a little more clearly and comprehensively than he seems to be understanding, but the only way that can be decided is psychiatrically. Now, witness, we will not question you further today, but we would advise you to make every effort to gather your mental forces and refresh your memory of the events which happened in Russia in 1941 and '42, so, when you come back into the courtroom you will be able to testify without hesitation, but we won't lose so much time as we did today. Do you understand that?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
THE WITNESS: I only want to say again that my mother has lost everything in her house, her own house, everything. It is, therefore, impossible -- or it is possible that there must be something remembered of these implements that were found, that my mother or I should be reproached or charged, that we are not able to do so.
I don't think that it is possible.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, just a moment now. Dr. Gick anything further you want to say at this moment?
DR. GICK: There is one thing, your Honor, I would like to say on this occasion; after the defendant has been examined by the psychiatrist, may I then ask the psychiatrist a few questions, and may I then again request the presence of Dr. Ritter von Bayer, and to hear his opinion as to this case.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, there is no reason why Dr. von Bayer may not be called into this conference. In fact, I think the present plans are to have him in on the conference.
DR. GICK: Thank you, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Now Dr. Aschenauer, will you be ready to proceed after recess? You will be, yes. All right. The Tribunal will now be in recess for fifteen minutes.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
Court, II, Case 9
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: I would like to say, Dr. Aschenauer, just before you begin that such other defense counsel as have their document books ready and intend to present them should be ready tomorrow morning to proceed and we would like to say - I don't see him here - that counsel for the defendant Fendler should be in tomorrow morning because we might call Fendler to the stand for a question or two. So, will one of counsel try to notify Fendler's counsel to that effect. Very well.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Preliminary question to the interpreter. Do the interpreters have a second copy of my document presentation?
INTERPRETER: Yes, I have.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, in that case may I tell you that I have talked with the prosecution and told them that I am presenting my documents together and that the end of the presentation of my documents the prosecution will raise their objection.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know just what difficulties either of you anticipate. If, Mr. Walton, you should indicate at the very moment that he presents the document why you object, if you object, why is not that program followed? It may be that you have a good reason.
MR. WALTON: YOur Honor, we agreed (any agreement which we made is, of course, subject to approval by the Tribunal and the wishes of the Tribunal will of course be followed in this.) However, we thought among ourselves that it would in the end save time and in addition to that would be important for comment either in the closing statement or in the brief of responsibility or the answer brief for counsel of both sides to find the record of the objection and the ruling on the objection in one consecutive spot. Now if that is going to place an undue burden on the Tribunal, naturally, I would not insist on such a procedure.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as it seems to us the first flush it may be after we get into it it will look different but as it seems to us prime faciedly:
we have a document before us. Dr. Aschenauer presents it and you find some reasons to object to it. You give your objection. We make our ruling and that ends it. The other way, after we listen to a discussion of some 5 documents then you come in and interpose an objection, Let us say, on thirty, well then you have to find your way through the labyrinth to connect it with the document when it is presented. It seems to us now that it might be better that is, as soon as he furnishes the document to which you desire to object you state your objection.
MR. WALTON: Very well, Your Honor, we will follow that.
THE PRESIDENT: well, we will try it.
Dr. Aschenauer do you see any serious objection to that procedure?
DR.ASCHENAUER: Yes, the objection I have for my part is that the documents form one unit and one document supplements others and that the entire document submission will be disturbed. The entire thing will be discontinued. That is the objection I have.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, isn't it going to be disturbed later when he gets up and points out his objection to various documents?
DR ASCHENAUER: I don't think so.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if it's ruled on immediately you know whether it is in or not. Let's try it this way a few minutes. There is no harm to be committed in trying it. Well, we will see how it works out.
DR. ASCHENAUER: In my presentation of documents in the case of Ohlendorf I am starting with Document Books II, II-A and II-B which II intended to introduce in their entirety concerning problems of a war in the East. They are intended to show how it came about that communists, Jews and Gypsies in the Soviet territory were considered as elements endangering security. They are also to show in what manner Communists, Jews and Gypsies constituted and element endangering the security in Soviet territory and why the defendant might have thought so. Ohlendorf and his co-defendants picked for themselves a special situation in this war situation which cannot be without influence in judging this question.
I, therefore, treat Document Books II, II-A, and II-B as an entirety. I submit Document 38 as Exhibit 1, Document 39 as Exhibit 2, and Document 40 as Exhibit 3.
MR. WALTON: Now, Your Honow, I would like to object to each one of these documents in Document Book II. The way they were presented was the series of four. Does the Tribunal wish me to take up each document separately or does it wish me to take up the document as a series?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, either way. Now we have these three documents and they are more or less inter-related. These three documents are inter-related and there is no reason why you can't address yourself to the three of them.
MR. WALTON: Well, prosecution objects to Document 38 as being the expert opinion on the law....
THE PRESIDENT: You are referring to Documents 38, 39 and 40.
MR. WALTON: I shall take them up as they were offered, 38 first.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. WALTON: Prosecution objects to the introduction of Document 38 as the expert opinion on the law of the case by Dr. Reinhard Maurach. It objects for the reason that this testimony is incompetent since this witness' testimony does not relate to matters of fact but to issues of international law involved in the proceeding, that is, to those specific issues of law which the Tribunal itself must determine. Second, a conclusion and inferences drawn from assumptions of fact as to necessity and self defense would be matters for argumentations either by brief or memoranda of law before this Tribunal. Since this Tribunal like any domestic court is presumed to know and authorized to take judicial notice of law of its own sovereignty and jurisdiction, and that law which is international law, in this instance, need not be proved. The court is competent to draw its own inferences from such international law.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Walton, in Dr. Aschenauer's opening statement he referred to this law. Dr. Aschenauer in his opening Statement referred to the law of self defense, law of necessity, law of presumed self defense, law of presumed necessity. That is part of his opening statement. That is part of his case. Now in support of that he submits an expert opinion. No harm can be done in having that before the Court. The court will accept it or not accept it, will agree with the theory by Professor Maurach or not. I can see no harm done in having it introduced. On the contrary it will be helpful in appraising the theory of defense as presented by Dr. Aschenauer.
MR. WALTON: May I cite a precidence in the Southeast Generals case where the defense was prevented quoting an expert opinion on international law.
THE PRESIDENT: You remember, Mr. Walton, in this case Professor Maurach was here and we specifically said to him that it is not necessary to take the witness stand and give a long dissertation but we shall be very happy to have you submit a brief on that subject which he now apparently has done. lightenment and illustration and for reference no one can possibly be prejudiced.
MR. WALTON: If Your Honor Pleases, Prosecution finds the duty on itself to object for purposes of the record. The ruling on that Objection is, of course, always within the breast of the court. However, I would like to get my objections in the record regardless of what the Court's ruling is.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. You m ay proceed.
MR. WALTON: It is of course true that in domestic courts foreign law may be proved by expert testimony. That, however, is only because it cannot be presumed that the so-called foreign law is known to the domestic court; here the law of the forum is, generally speaking, international law for this Tribunal, as Wigmore has put it and I quote:
"Must be coedited with a knowledge of its own or at least with a competent knowledge of where to search for it." Wigmore on Evidence, Section 2572, page 551. matter of argument for counsel's defense brief. The other questions of law treated are in their proper function for the Tribunal and as a defense document is objected to by the Prosecution. Document 39.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is overruled. Proceed to the next one.
MR. WALTON: Document 39 is an excerpt from a Stalin radio speech of 3 July 1941, page 60 of defense document book. The type of resistance instituted against an aggressor cannot justify before this Tribunal the liquidation of a racial group of people of an invaded country especially since this extermination was planned before the first act of aggression was ever committed. The fact that the attacked nation fought back with every means it possessed to expell the invader still does not justify the commission of nearly one hundred thousand murders.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Walton, if this speech by Stalin had said that Soviet troops should kill Jews I don't think that you would object to its introduction because then it would be argument on behalf of the defense; it did not say that , we know, but it is the theory of the defense that the Russians were conducting their warfare in such a manner as gave some justification, at least psychologically, that the defense for their acts, whether that is accepted or not, is a matter for argumentation and even decision. We see no reason and no harm is done in having this in the records. The objection is overruled.
MR. WALTON: Document 40, excerpt from the Russian was publication entitled "We are Guerrillas", no date given, page 61 to 67 of the defendant's document book. This is in the n ature of hearsay evidence and in addition it gives no date when the events it relates happened. They could have happened subsequent to the date the defendant left Russia and they could also have happened in other areas besides that occupied by Einsatzgruppe D. The Tribunal in its order of 9 October 1947 has rejected this type of evidence as inadmissible.
THE PRESIDENT: We do think that the lack of dates here make the document a little elucive.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Herr President, I am prepared to submit the original.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, does it have a date?
DR. ASCHENAUER: I have the original book in my office and can submit it to the Tribunal at any time just as it was multiplied.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, but I asked, does it have the date. A book can be printed at any time.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Well, at the moment I cannot answer this question but I can look it up any time.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then we will reserve our decision on that until we see the original book.
MR. WALTON: Document 41, the affidavit of Oskar Dankers.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I Haven't submitted that yet.
THE PRESIDENT: He hasn't submitted that, Mr. Walton.
MR. WALTON: Sorry, sir, I thought he submitted the entire document book.
THE PRESIDENT: No, he said 38, 39 and 40.
DR. ASCHENAUER: The prosecution considers in their indictment the war in the East as a normal war. Document No. 38 reveals that the German-Russian war is not a war in the sense of international law.
DR. ASCHENAUER: This document reveals that the partisan warfare which is being discussed by the prosecution, even if The Hague Convention of Warfare is applied in the case of Russia and the rules of warfare are applied according to their meaning, under no circum stances could the warfare be considered illegal; that, therefore, owing to the peculiarities in the territory where the Russian war was conducted, in view of the measures, the manner in which the war was conducted were justified which otherwise would have to be considered illegal or prohibited.
It is also shown that for the Russian warfare there were no limitations according to international law. Any means was permitted according to Soviet opinions as long as it would harm the enemy.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Aschenauer, do you intend now to argue from this thesis?
DR. ASCHENAUER: No, Your Honor, I am just quoting from the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Now you have indicated what it is, it is the expert opinion by this professor on international law, and then when you make your summation you will draw from this opinion such parts as you will need to support your argument. If you are going to argue it now then you are going to argue it twice. We know now what it is.
That is the purpose of talking about a document when you present it, to inform the Tribunal what it is.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Of course, Your Honor. In that case I would like to talk about the next document now.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. ASCHENAUER: According to Document Book II - in the Document Book II-A Document No. 42 and Document No. 43 are submitted as Exhibits No. 4 and 5, and I offer those numbers. These are excerpts from the Russian Encyclopedia which indicate the official notes of warfare of the Russians. I submit this document mostly because I want to offer that all that the Russian warfare had planned and the way it was conducted was known because these documents were made out before the year 1941.
MR. WALTON: The same objection, Your Honor, to both documents being discussed by the prosecution. The prosecution objects to Documents 42 and 43 in that they are treaties on partisan warfare methods. No evidence appears as to the qualifications of the authors as experts in this type of warfare, and as such they are purely hearsay. Nothing contained therein shows any justification for multiplicitous murder committed by German Einsatzgruppen or other crimes laid down by the charges in the indictment. No policies of the Russians on partisan warfare can set at naught the laws of all nations on the crime of murder. To allow these documents will serve only to clutter up the record and thus needlessly protract the proceedings in this case.
THE PRESIDENT: Strictly speaking, Dr. Aschenauer, the relevancy of these documents is not apparent. What the Russians intended to do in their partisan warfare can scarcely have any effect on whether multiplicitous murder is justified, or killing is justified or not. However, if you insist on it, they are already mimeographed; it can't harm anyone; the work is already done; so if you insist on giving