DR. STEUBINGER: Yes, I hope so, your Honor. Of course, I cannot say exactly how long this will take, but Document Book I can be introduced today.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.
DR. STEUBINGER: I said this morning that I was prepared to do this.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, we will take it just as soon as we reach it.
Dr. Riediger for the defendant Haensch.
DR, RIEDIGER: Your Honor, I handed in three document books. Document Book I has been translated and submitted. Document Book II has also been translated and should be submitted any day. Document No. III is being translated and it should take a few more days until the translation will be completed. Apart from that I am expecting two or three further affidavits from the Russian zone which should arrive sometime this week which will also be added to the document book, completed, is Document Book No. I, and can be submitted any time. Document Book No. II Should be ready for submission at the end of this week.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the prosecution has received Document Book No. II of Dr. Riediger's.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then, you would be ready to proceed with your Document Books I and II.
DR. RIEDIGER: Yes, I then could submit I and II.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Dr. Hoffmann. Are you here only as a Spectator today, I see you sitting back in the gallery, or are you really working?
DR. HOFFMANN: I only took that seat because I did not want to sit in the front row.
THE PRESIDENT: That is just your natural modesty.
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, for the defendant Nosske who is my Client I am submitting seven documents which will be translated by Monday.
I could not call this a book, but I shall introduce the documents individually.
THE PRESIDENT: And you think they will be ready by Monday?
DR. HOFFMANN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Thank you very much, Dr. Hoffmann.
Dr. Koessl for the defendant Ott.
MR. WALTON: If your Honor please, there is one matter that concerns Dr. Hoffmann and myself, and since we are both here and since Your Honor has cited the occupational disease of lawyers to slip out. I would like to take up this one matter before we proceed further. On the 19th of December, in obedience to the direction of the court, we submitted an affidavit of the former defendant, Emil Hausmann. My understanding is that is Prosecution's Exhibit 188. I have forgotten the document number. However, there is a motion pending before the court already filed by the prosecution on the 19th of December. So far I have not received a reply or an answer to that motion. If I remember correctly the court stated in its direction that counsel for the defendant and the prosecution would file their briefs and that the court would make its decision in a written opinion.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. WALTON: The secretary is getting a little nervous about it too. He keeps writing me notes asto just what I am going to do.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. WALTON: But the main thing I should like, if it is at all Possible that if the motion is decided in my favor I intend to use it in my closing brief. If not, I would like to know that now so that I can Still write the brief without reference to the document.
PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Hoffmann, will you please tell us whether you intend to file the reply brief?
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, I received the motion by the Prosecution and also prepared a reply. By the end of this week it will have been translated; however, I take the liberty of suggesting whether we and the prosecution will have to discuss the Hausmann affidavit as yet because of the fact that various Tribunals have made different rulings. This with regard to Ordinance Number 7, might complicate matters.
PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Hoffmann, you can quote in your brief those decisions which support your view that the affidavit should be excluded, and I presume Mr. Walton will certainly quote those which support his contention that it should be admitted. Then, of course, we will decided which one we like better and dispose of it.
MR. WALTON: Fur purposes of record, Sir, that document specifically is No. 4147.
PRESIDENT: Yes, Very well. Very well. Dr. Koessl.
DR. KOESSL: Koessl for Ott and Schubert. I have ready for presentation the Document Books I and II for Ott and Document Books I and II for Schubert. For Ott only a small supplement is still to be submitted. I hope that this small supplement will be translated by the end of the week.
PRESIDENT: Well, are you ready to present Document Books I and II in behalf of Ott and I and II in behalf of Schubert?
DR. KOESSL: Yes, immediately.
PRESIDENT: Very well, thank you very much. Dr. Gick, for the defendant Strauch. Do you intend to present more than one document book?
DR. GICK: Your Honor, I have two document books which I have completed for the defendant. The document books, the second one in particular, I had to make without the cooperation of the defendant. I had to make it based on my own information only and by studying files and documents myself because I was not able to work with the defendant for some time. These two document books were already handed in to the translation department. As soon as the translation department returns them, I shall be able to submit them.
PRESIDENT: When did you hand Number II in, because Number I is already prepared.
DR. GICK: Number I is prepared -- I didn't know that yet. The second one was only handed in yesterday.
PRESIDENT: Is it a very long one?
DR. GICK: It is not very large, No, but I assume that it contains about 20 documents.
PRESIDENT: Very well. Dr. Mayer for the defendant Klingelhoefer.
DR. MAYER: Mayer for Klingelhoefer. Your Honor, I have one document book which I am prepared to submit for the defendant Klingelhoefer.
PRESIDENT: Very well, thank you. Dr. Fritz for the defendant Fondler. You have already presented one document book. Do you intend to have anything more?
DR. FRITZ: Your Honor, today I submitted another document book, Fendler Nuaber II, but it consists only of two documents. It should be completed in a few days, and apart from that, I am expecting one further affidavit, and I would like to submit that as well, it it should be received before the end of the presentation of the evidence.
PRESIDENT: Very well, thank you. Dr. Ratz for the defendant von Radetzky.
DR. RATZ: Dr. Ratz for the defendant, von Radetzky. Your Honor, my two document books have been translated, and mimeographed for some time already. I am prepared to submit the document books at any time, but I am about to get another three or four affidavits which I have not yet received, but I hope that I shall have them at the latest at the beginning of next week, and shall be able to submit them as well.
PRESIDENT: Very well. Dr. ruehl for the defendant Link, or I mean -
DR. LEHMANN: Dr. Link has informed me that his books are not ready yet.
PRESIDENT: Well, I think I was correct, saying "Dr. Ruehl for the defendant Link." Dr. Koessl for the defendant, Schubert -- well, he has already given us that. Dr. Belzer for the defendant, Graf.
DR. BELZER: Your Honor, I would like to make my statement from here. I have prepared one document book. I am waiting for a sign to start with the presentation.
PRESIDENT: You are waiting for what?
DR. BELZER: I am waiting for a sign to begin my presentation.
PRESIDENT: We will give you that sign this afternoon. Thank you very much. Well, I think school is out for the pupils here, with the exception of Dr. Aschenauer, Dr. Belzer, and two or three who are immediately ready. You may continue with your objection, Mr. Walton. We would suggest that those attorneys who have all their documentation ready to present might come next rather than those who are only partly ready.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, I take the liberty of expressing a general request.
The presentation of evidence is being delayed a little, and that is why I want to make the request that for the beginning of the final pleas a few additional days will be given us. Too many technical difficulties would arise of one considers the translation difficulties. Perhaps instead of Monday, Wednesday, or Thursday, the final pleas should be started.
PRESIDENT: It isn't quite clear just what you request, Dr. Aschenauer. We have now scheduled January 26 for the summations. Now, do you ask that that be modified?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes. I should like to ask to postpone this for a few days so that we have more time for preparation. It is just like this, that the presentation of documents will not be finished befor* Monday, and before the final pleas are made, all the pieces of evidence have to be considered. The final pleas can be handed in at the earliest on Friday or Saturday next week.
PRESIDENT: Dr. Aschenauer, one full week will be allowed for the preparation of the summations, regardless of when we terminate the actual taking of testimony and the receipt of document books.
DR. ASCHENAUER: For preparation, then let us assume that the presentation of documents is concluded Monday week, in that case.
PRESIDENT: You mean next Monday?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Next Monday. Let us assume that the presentation of documents is concluded by then, then we get eight days to prepare ourselves. That would mean Monday week. Then the final pleas could be translated at the earliest on Monday week. This suggestion for handing in the final pleas department on that date, but the translation department takes a few days as well.
PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, arrangements are being made for an acceleration of the translations of the final arguments. It will not be necessary to mimeograph these arguments so long as you have the German copy ready, enough translations will be made for the delivery, that is, to say, the reporters will have a copy, the interpreters will have a copy, and then as it is delivered the summations will go into the transcript and it won't be necessary to bring it out in a separate document, so that in a matter of a couple of days we will have a summation as it appears in the transcript.
DR. ASCHENAUER: In that case, may I therefore conclude that my final plea will not be handed into the translation department before Monday week.
PRESIDENT: Yes, well, your case is just a little bit different, Dr. Aschenauer, because you more or less have taken the burden of submitting the law which applies generally to those who fall in, let us say, the category of the defense advanced by your client, Ohlendorf, so that if you should want a little more time, we are certainly disposed to let you have it, but there is no reason why the next defense counsel shouldn't be ready to begin at the time we have indicated because he won't need to have so much time to prepare his argument.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, my colleague objected with the following argument which is of importance. They will coordinate their pleas to my final plea because I shall make general statements and they shall follow me.
PRESIDENT: But I can't believe that every attorney is going to wait until that very last moment to prepare his argument, and there is no reason why they can't be preparing their argument right now; however, you can be assured that everyone will be allowed ample time to prepare his summation. that is what we say now, and that is what we are going to insist upon, but if because of some circumstances over which you have no control it is necessary that you have a little more time, naturally, that will be granted. As it stands now, let us say that you will be ready to submit your written argument a week from next Monday for translation, so that you will be ready to deliver it, let us say, on Wednesday of that week.
DR. ASCHANAUER: Very well.
PRESIDENT: Let us tentatively agree upon that.
DR. HOFFMANN: Hoffmann for the defendant, Nosske. Your Honor, but this does not mean to say that the presentation of documents will have to be concluded by the defense by Monday. Surely it will be possible to present some documents, if necessary, on Monday, on Tuesday, or Wednesday, next week.
PRESIDENT: Yes. Very well.
DR.BELZER: I beg your pardon, Your Honor. The suggestion I wanted to make is similar to the one my colleague, Hoffmann just made. I am in difficulties with two witnesses, Zimmermann and Wohlgemut, which have been approved by the Tribunal. I have been trying for weeks to get affidavits from these two witnesses to avoid their having to come here. Mr. Pace intervened, but still we were not able to get these affidavits in the meantime. I just heard that the one witness, Dr. Wohlgemut, will arrive here on 14 January. I shall try to get an affidavit from this witness immediately and shall include it in document Number IV, and shall try to submit this document book still this week. Concerning the other witness, Zimmermann, it might be necessary that he should be visited at his present place of residence in order to obtain an affidavit from him.
It is possible that I might only be able to get this affidavit at the betinning of next week, and I shall only be able to submit it at that date.
PRESIDENT: Well, where there is a situation as you have already described, and the Tribunal has already approved the witness, certainly we will receive the affidavit at the first moment that you are physically able to obtain and process it.
DR.PELZER: Thank you, Your Honor.
PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. MAYER: I beg your pardon, Your Honor. Merely for the sake of clarity, I would like to ask that I might be allowed to summarize-that the final pleas, have to be handed in one week after the conclusion of the presentation of documents?
PRESIDENT: They should be ready by one week from next Monday.
DR. MAYER: I thought this was merely an example, Your Honor. It is possible that this might be delayed and that the presentation of documents might not be concluded by Monday.
PRESIDENT: Well, Yes, one week from the date we conclude the proceedings.
DR. STEIN: Your Honor.
PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stein.
DR. STEIN: I have an inquiry to make. I intend to hand in a closing brief as well as my summation. I would like to ask whether this closing brief also has to be submitted within a certain period?
PRESIDENT: It would be highly desirable that that brief be in the hands of the Tribunal at least--not later than the day you make your final summation, but if for any reason you don't have it ready and would indicate to the Tribunal that you would submit it say two or three days later, we will receive it then.
DR. STEIN: Thank you.
DR. ULMER: Your Honor, I beg your pardon for intervening, but in order to be clearer about the time, it would be better to fix a definite date concerning the questions we have discussed.
I just explained for my defendant, Six, and was praised by the president for doing this, that I had my documents translated myself at least in document book II in order to avoid delays, but in fact it is like this, that as long as I have not received back the document books completely, I cannot take the responsibility of not being present at the proceedings and already starting to work on my final plea, my final summation. The translation of the document when received from the translation department has to be reviewed by the conscientious defense counsel. It is a rather vague concept if we are told that one week after the conclusion of the presentation of documents the final summations have to be handed in. This last date of presentation of documents might be Wednesday, the 21st or a day earlier or a day later. Your Honor, you originally fixed the 26th of January as the time for the submission of the summations. Looking at the calendar, may I ask for myself in a more precise manner that the submission of our summations should be fixed for the second of February at the latest, that is, one week after the originally intended 26 January. It is easier to have a definite date, Your Honor. I don't know when my colleagues will have finished with their last document. If I knew it was the second of February, I wouldn't need to know, but if you said of course, to have everything prepared by the second of February, that would help me a great deal, and I think the entire work and cooperation would be made easier.
PRESIDENT: Do you have something, Mr. Ferencz?
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, the prosecution is prepared to proceed with the rebuttal case immediately as soon as the defense is through with the introduction of any documents or evidence. However, we cannot proceed with our rebuttal until the defense is through. therefore, it is important for us, too, that we set a definite date when the defense will have all their documents in or it will be too late. I would like to remind the Tribunal that the prosecution's case was finished in two days. Since then the defense has had three and a half months, when they had all the evidence before them, and the prosecution and the Tribunal have instructed the defense to have their documents ready and submit them to translation.
I suggest therefore that the Tribunal set some date close to the 26th for the date of the completion, and for the taking of any testimony for the defense.
PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will discuss this in chambers during the recess and will advise counsel precisely as to the chronology of the various things still remaining to be done until this trial is completed.
DR. ULMER: Thank you, Your Honor. May I finally make the formal application for myself to be given time until the second of February for the delivery of my summation?
PRESIDENT: Well, we can't at this moment, Dr. Ulmer, make any announcement with regard to any particular defendant, you better wait until we make the general announcement, and then if you have any specific reason for deviating from the schedule outlined, then if you will see the Tribunal, then we can see what can be done.
DR. ULMER: Yes, Your Honor. I merely wanted to specify what I wanted but not to make any new suggestions.
PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. Thank you very much. All right. Mr. Walton.
MR.WALTON: The next document in Document Book I submitted for the defendant, Ohlendorf, to which the prosecution objects is Document No. 19, which is an unsworn statement of Walter Solbeen, dated 22 August 1947, page 130 to 132. This statement gives information as to Ohlendorf's activities in the Reich Ministry of Economics after November 1943. It is immaterial to any charge brought against this defendant. Document Number 20, the unsworn statement of Dr. Elmer Michel, dated 20 September 1947, page 133 to 135. This treats of the defendant's fight against monopolistic practices, struggles with political and antagonists and it shows on its face that the author has no knowledge of the defendant's activities during 1940 to 1945, some of which time is in direct issue in this case. Document Number 21, being an unsworn statement of Dr. Josef Duetsch, dated 26 September 1947, pages 136 to 140, and it treats of the defendant's struggles prior to the outbreak of the war as an official in the Reich group for trade and commerce.
It is immaterial and irrelevant to the issues of the case.
MR. WALTON: Now objection is offered to Document No. 22, being the affidavit of Fritz Schulz, undated. Franz Maulhardt, dated 6 October, 1947, There is no objection offered to Document No. 24 being the unsworn statement of Karl Winter, dated 3 October 1947.
Prosecution does, however, wish to object to Document No. 25, which is the unsworn statement of Dr. Justus Beyer, undated, pages 149 to 153, which is again evidence submitted as to the domestic spheres of the activities of the SD. It is immaterial as to the activities of this organization in Russia.
It interposes an objection to Document No. 26, being the affidavit of Horst Webendoerfer, dated 21 October 1947.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Walton, perhaps if you refer to the affidavit number, the document number, and the name of the declarant or affiant, as the case may be, we might expedite things a little bit.
MR. WALTON: Yes, although all of them are hot affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: Or whatever it is.
MR.WALTON: The affidavit of Horst Webendoerfer is a memorandum as to the defendant's activity during his service with the National Group Trade and his struggles with Ley, Himmler, and so forth, and is immaterial.
Document 27, the affidavit of Dr. Hans Roessner. There are several affidavits from this affiant. This is undated and is found on pages 6 to 15 of this particular Document Book la. This document of the witness' testimony is unsigned and refers to the cultural life of the German people, and the interest further displayed by this defendant is immaterial to the issues and to his activities as head of the Einsatzgruppe. It is irrelevant as to whether or not he participated in war crimes and crimes against humanity as a member of the SD in the East.
Document 28, being the deposition of Dr. Hans Lammers, shows that on its face it is undated in the English text and that the certificate of the testifying witness is unsigned.
The document is objectionable in that it is not shown that this witness is an expert on channels of communication is SS formations, nor is it shown whether this witness has knowledge of other than the official relationships between Ohlendorf and members of Hitler's personal staff. affidavit of Werner Lorenz. Erich von der Heyde. It is cumulative testimony and treats of the political ideology of the defendant. It is neither material nor relevant to the issues of the case as at this time the defendant was only nominally a member of the SD. Erich von der Heyde. This document showing the kindness and consideration shown by the defendant in the case of Jewish employees of the I.G. Farben is irrelevant to the murder of thousands of Russian Jews for security reasons. being Document 32.-from Himmler to Ohlendorf and is dated 31 October 1943. It is cumulative evidence of the uncontested fact that relations between these two parties were not cordial. Reprimands that are based on charges of alterations of SS uniforms are somewhat irrelevant to this case. pondence from the Mohammedan Committee. letter dated 6 February 1934, purportedly being from Ohlendorf. This, of course, is objected to on the grounds that it is a self-serving declaration and is immaterial to his activities in the Eastern Territories, which happened in '41, or to the illegal acts committed by the SS or SD subsequent to September 1939.
Donner dated 8 October 1947, this document being a recital of the activities of Ohlendorf during the period 1934 to 1937, to which there is no contest and to the later period of 1944 after his return from Russia. It is not claimed by the prosecution that this defendant committed any illegal acts during these periods of time. Such testimonies as letters of recommendation, unsworn, and covering incidents outside the scope of the charges in the indictment are irrelevant. lizeny before the International Military Tribunal of the 3rd of January, 1946. ted to as the documents were offered. There is no point in going over that.
THE PRESIDENT: No, you needn't go over it.
MR. WALTON: I should like to take up now Document Book II-B, which is in the series of books.
Document No. 58 is an excerpt from Hjalmar Schacht, being Schacht Exhibit 48, and is a memorandum concerning the description of a four-year plan, dated 1936. The contents of this document have not been served on the prosecution, as was pointed out to the court yesterday and I don't believe the court has a copy of this particular document. I would like to reserve objection on that until I see what the contents of the document are.
The next document is Document No. 59, which is excerpts from Adolf Hitler's proclamation of 22 June 1941 as appear in the Voelkischer of 23 June 1941. This is hearsay evidence. It is an attempt to refute the historical fact that the invasion of Russia was an aggressive act on the part of Germany. Nothing in this document pertains to the issue involved in the case and the quotation of a newspaper account is certainly hearsay evidence too far removed from the source and for that reason the prosecution objects.
The two extracts from the works, "Speaking Frankly," which are Documents No. 60 and 61, the work, "Speaking Frankly," being published by James F. Burns is hearsay and conclusions of the author and immaterial to the issue in the case.
The next document book is Document Book 3. The prosecution interposes no objection to Document 44 and interposes no objection to Document 45. There is no objection to Document 46, nor does the prosecution object to Document 47 in Document Book 3. der of the Commanding General Plenipotentiary in Serbia, dated 26 October 1941. Now this order is immaterial to the issue for the lack of jurisdiction over Einsatzgruppe D. At the date of the order Einsatzgruppe D was not in Serbia and was not under the jurisdiction of a general commanding in Serbia. also of the Plenipotentiary Commanding General in Serbia dated 3 November 1941 for the same reasons as were entered in the record as to Document 48. to Document 52, but the prosecution does object to Document 53, the same being extracts from an interrogation of General Westhof on the grounds that it does not show the qualifications of the witness, his positon in the German armed forces, his opportunity for knowledge and what are the reasons upon which he bases the opinion given in this interrogation, also for the reason that the highest and best evidence in the matters about which he testifies are the regulations, decrees, and orders themselves.
Prosecution interposes no objection to Document No. 54, which is contained in Ohlendorf Document Book No. 4. The same is the entry in the service record book of Otto Ohlendorf. There is no objection.
the same being a supplementary affidavit of Dr. Hans Lammers. No. 56, that being the affidavit of Dr. Hans Ehlich, dated 25 November 1947. This is the organization and function of Amt. 3 of the RSHA as given in a deposition form by a former Chief of Section 3-B of that Amt. This document while possibly of value as background or historical material has no value to the charges of mass murder in Southwest Russia including the Crimea. Likewise it presents no defense to the charges that the SD was a criminal organization as this is a fact that has become raised adjudicata by the decision of the IMT. Doubtlessly the SD engaged in numerous legal activities during the years 1939 to 1945, but this Tribunal is engaged in the examination of the illegal and criminal activities which this organization and its titular head engaged in during the Russian Campaign. Therefore, the knowledge and or participation of this defendant in such actions are neither discussed hor denied by this witness and this document therefore becomes irrelevant to the issues of this case. same being the affidavit of Dr. Heinz Wanninger. To four-fifths of this affidavit the same objection can be raised as was offered to the affidavit by Dr. Ehlich appearing in the document book. However, since this affiant does treat the organization and inside of the Einsatzgruppe, the prosecution offers no objection to those parts which pertain to the issues of the case. missed either 63A or 64A, but certainly to the translation of Document No. 1880. There is nothing which shows the source of this document on the English copy. However, we do not object to it and I think from the language it will be of value ot the prosecution. tract from Document NO. 1881, was not served on the prosecution in English, but I waive that as I have had that translated to me, but this document refers to some plan or proposal concerning the treatment of volunteers from the East.
It is, the best I could get from it, a cover letter or a memorandum file and such a document is immaterial until the referred-to document is introduced which apparently was part of this same extract. Maybe it can't be found, I don't know, but as the document stands on its face, it is certainly immaterial to the issues in this case.
MR. WALTON: NOW, your Honor, a few words more and I am finished. As to the documents which were presented to the Tribunal in connection with the activities of the SD,it must be said again that all these documents are immaterial to this case. The question before the Tribunal is not whether the SD, the SS or the Gestapo were criminal organizations. The question is solely whether the Defendant Ohlendorf or any other defendant in this case having joined the SD voluntarily remained a member of this organization, or if he was drafted into this organization by the State, whether he took part in such criminal activities or not and that is the question.
The fact that the SD. the SS and the Gestapo were criminal organizations is definitely established by Control Council Law No. 10 and is not an issue before this Tribunal, the prosecution would be obliged to offer proof of the criminality of these organizations. In other words, the prosecution would be obliged to request this Tribunal to try a considerable part of the case of Goering and others, as it was before the International Military Tribunal, over again. have decided about membership in criminal organizations that the question of criminality of certain organizations to which the SD belongs was validly decided by the IMT and by Control Council Law No. 10 and was made binding for the decisions of these Tribunals. prosecution objected against the admission of a document which was presented by defense counsel for the Defendant Fendler by stating and I quote: "You can show that he, that is, Fendler, was either not a member of that organization or that being a member of the organization he was entirely ignorant of its criminal operations, but you cannot contest what is now adjudicata, that that organization has been declared a criminal organization." And later on the Tribunal stated further. and I quote again, "We will permit the document only for the purpose of enlightening the Tribunal on the knowledge of the Defendant Fendler that this organization was conducting criminal operations."
