DR. HOCHWALD: But the Tribunal already ruled on that but I only want to point out that also the exhibit is incomplete, not only the excerpts before the Tribunal in the document book, but also the exhibit itself does not contain the complete decree. And, what I want the Tribunal to rule is that I should be permitted without submitting a new exhibit to quote from the same document parts which are ommitted in the exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is the complete decree?
DR. HOCHWALD: The complete decree, as far as I know, is in the Ge man Law Gazette, your Honor, it might be in Law Gazette of 1938. At the moment I am unable to tell the Tribunal the page. However, I shall be able to quote, or indicate the pages in the official Law Gazette. What I want to omit, to escape, is the fact that I would have to put in a new exhibit as such.
THE PRESIDENT: The fact that counsel for the defense has referred to this decree naturally brings the decree before the Tribunal for consideration and if he quotes from one section certainly the Prosecution has the right to quote from another section.
DR. HOCHWALD: Thank you very much your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You are welcome.
That completes your presentation?
DR. RATZ: I would like to reserve the right to submit either three or four more affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: That right will be reserved to you and we will repeat that whatever documents are available after you have presented your document books in court may still be presented up to and including the time for presentation of final summations provided that copies are furnished the Prosecution so that they may in due time make any objections they deem in order.
Dr. Mayer we will now hear you.
DR. MAYER, defense counsel for the defendant Steimle: for the defendant Steimle. I am submitting three document books alto gether.
Document Book 1 countains a number of affidavits which were made out by persons who have known the defendant Steimle for a considerable time. Document Book II contains reports of events concerning the activities of Sonderkommando 7-A and concerning other conditions in the territory of assignment SK7A, expecially during the time Steimle was Sonderkommando chief. Without the slightest doubt it will be established through the documents that SK7A in the time from the middle of September 1941 until December 1941, was mainly occupied with partisan warfare and that shootings of Jews were never reported at any period. Document Book III contains one document and is just a supplement of Document Book I.
As document Steinle #1 I submit the affidavit of one Dr. Stirner of 19 October 1947. I would like to give this document exhibit #1. Dr. Stirner has known the defendant Steimle since the year 1928. In his affidavit he gives an explicit characteristic of the defendant as far as his character is concerned and also concerning the time Steimle was with the SD in Stuttgart.
As document Steimle #2 I submit the affidavit of Rudolf Griesinger, the Senior educational officer for teachers in training, Stuttgart, of 21 September 1947 which I shall give exhibit "2. It contains an explanation of the political views of the defendant Steimle and his attitude concerning thos who had different political ideas, especially antiFascist, and he tells how Steimle later supported Griesinger when he was endangered to lose his job as director of the Seminar for Teachers in Training for referendars in Stuttgart because of antiFascist remarks he had made.
As Steimle document 3 I submit the affidavit of Dr. Dill of 30 October 1947. I would like to submit this affidavit as exhibit #3. Dr. Dill was an official in the Ministry of the Interior in Stuttgart and during the activities of Steimle in the SD sector Stuttgart he had a certain professional contact. He confirms especially the factual way of reporting of Steimle as an SD man who did not hesitate to make strong and severe criticism of measures of the Hitler regime.
As Steimle document 4 I submit the affidavit of Dr. Gustav Scheel of 7 October 1947 which I shall give exhibit #4. Dr. Scheel was the leader of the Reich Students Association. He confirms that Steimle on his initiative joined an SD sector SW in 1936 and he also describes the kind of activities of Steimle. October 1947. Kommer from 1938 to 1940 was in the SD sector Stuttgart as typist of the defendant. She confirms especially that the defendant had protected officials and professors of the university in Tuebingen on repeated occasions when endangered by anti-fascist attitudes. She further confirms Steimle was an enemy of radical anti-semtism and did not take part in the anti-Jewish action of 1938. This I submit as exhibit 5. Dr. Scheel of 7 October 1947 and in it is confirmed that the defendant Steimle during the time from 9 to 10 November 1938 was on a trip through Belgium with Dr. Scheel. Wilhlem Deuschle, of 8 November 1947. Deuschle confirms therein that the defendant succeed in having the son of Dueschle freed from the concentration camp Welzheim. Dr. E. Reichel of 16 October 1947. Reichel confirms that with the support of the defendant Steimle the Jewish woman Frau Geheimrat Wach, nee Mendelssohn, was released from the concentration camp at Theresienstadt and was able to immigrate to Sweden. Heinz Nosek of 14 October 1947. Nosek was the subordinate of the defendant Steimle in Office 6 of the Reich Security Main Office and here confirms that with the support of the defendant Steimle the wife of the former chief of the public relations office of the French Ministry, Mrs.
Comert was released from the concentration camp Ravensbrueck and was able to return to her home. Walter Schellenberg of 4 October 1947. Schellenberg was chief of office 6 from July 1941 until the end of the War and from July 44 until the end of the war was Chief of Amt Mil in the RSHA and in both cases superior of the defendant Steimle. First he goes into details about work of the defendant Steimle in these two positions and points out especially the always factual criticism and energetic attitude of the defendant Steimle against the catastrophic policy of the Third Reich. Mrs. Helga Stahl of 3 October 1947. In this affidavit it is confirmed that the defendant Steimle was in Stuttgart on 20 December 1941 and that during the following months until the end of July 1942 he was employed in his former office in SD sector Stuttgart. From this it becomes evident that the defendant Steimler in agreement with his testimony which he gave was no longer with SK7A during the months of January and February 1942 as actually during this time he was in Stuttgart. Therefore, in advance I would like to point out that I have submitted a correction of this document which I hope has been taken note of by the Tribunal.
DR. MAYER (continued):
As document Steimle #12, - exhibit 12 - I submit the affidavit of Walter Roller of 11 November 1947. Roller was the driver of the defendant Steimle from 1936 until December 1941. Therefore, until that point at which Steimle left Sk7A Roller describes his activities under Steimle in Sk7A. Especially, he confirms that the name of the place Sadrudubs was not known to him as a place were Sk7A was and that such a name during all his stay in Russia until the end of January 1944 he never found out about such a place. Also he confirms that during the time in which he was in Sk4 together with Steimle he had never heard anything about shootings of Jewish women and children being carried out by Sk7A. He furthermore confirms that he has never driven Steimle to any of these executions during this time. Radl of 4 November 1947. Radl was liaison officer with the Army High Command 9 and a member of Sk4 under Steimle. Radl confirms that especially in the territory of Sk7A partisan activity was especially severe and energetic combat of partisans was an important task of Sk7A. Radl as liaison officer, in agreement of the Army High Command 9. worked out marching routes of SK based on assignment orders of the Army High Command. Therefore, he had good knowledge of the territory of activity of Sk7A. He also confirms that in this territory of assignment there was no place called Sadrudubs and no place called Balochina either.
The following document #14 I will not submit. of the Indo-Germanic and Slavonic seminar of the Tuebingen University of 13 November 1947. This expert opinion confirms that the name Sadrudubs in its first part does not exist as a Russian word and that the name does not mean anything and makes no sense. Furthermore it is confirmed that the end sylable - dubs - is only used in names of larger localities which are mentioned in general geographical maps.
COURT II CASE IX Johannes Papritz dated 12 October 1947. Dr. Papritz was recommended to me as expert and lecturer for Russian at Tuebingen University and knew Russian well. Dr. Papritz in his affidavit says: "That in all the documents which were available to him and which he mentions in these documents he could not find the place Sadrudubs. of Dr. Johannes Papritz of 11 November 1947. From this it becomes evident that approximately 5 kilometers to the south of the town Sadrudubs which was in the territory of Sk7B the locality Belowchina can be found. The Tribunal will remember that in the report of events #124 of 25 Oct. 1941 which the Prosecution submitted as document #3160 in Document Book II-B as exhibit 65, the following is mentioned. "When the village Belowchina was set up as ghetto for the Jews, some Jews resisted. Thereupon 272 Jews and Jewish women were shot." In connection with the document which I have just submitted it is obvious and evident that it can only be Jews of the town of Sarodub which I mentioned here which were to be brought into the ghettox in the village Belowchina. Sarodub and Belowchina are in the territory of activities of Sk7-A such places are not existant. reports of events which concern Steimle as chief of Sk7A and I would like to give a short explanation about these. These reports start with a report of 11 September 1941, which is #80. They are being submitted according to number and date until the report of 15 December 1941, #146. Through this the Tribunal will get a general perspective concerning all reports in this period concerning the activity of the defendant Steimle as chief of Sk7A. At the same time every doubt is to be eliminated that these reports of events were not complete when they were found and, therefore, this and other reports could not have been submitted by the Prosecution in which an incrimination of the defendant Steimle may be contained. In looking through these reports of events of events it was established that in a number of them it is only seen COURT II CASE IX that reports of Einsatzgruppe B have not been submitted.
In these cases, therefore, in order not to put in anything that is surperfluous I only put that one sentence in my document"reports of Einsatzgruppe B have not been submitted." of reports of events of this kind into one document. Further reports of events were also sumitted by the Prosecution. As far as in these reports special reports of events are contained which have not been taken into documents of the Prosecution as excerpts. I have only taken over into my excerpts this part only as far as seems essential in order to prevent that the same excerpts would be submitted by me as well as the Prosecution. In order to gain better persepective, however, I have marked the exhibit # of the Prosecution in these cases in order to show that reports of events with other excerpts have been submitted by the Prosecution although the content is somewhat different. The report of events 124 and 125 are not contained in my document book 2". These reports of events have been submitted by the Prosecution under exhibits #65 and #63 in Document Book II-B. As these two Prosecution documents contain everything that seems to me important for this trial I will not submit them myself. As far as I submit excerpts of reports of events I only do so in agreement with the testimony of the defendant Steimle when on the witness stand in order to confirm these statements. Those things that are not in connection with this testimony I have omitted here in order to not bother the Tribunal with unnecessary material.
As document Steimle #18, exhibit 17 I submit the certified excerpt from reports of events 80-84 Nov. 11 to 15 September 1941. It is confirmed here that reports of Einsatzgruppe B have not been received. of the 16 September 1941 as excerpt. From this very short excerpt it becomes evident that on 15 September 1941 the town Shurash which is to the southwest of Welish was attacked by 200 heavily armed partisans and during this attack a number of economic enterprises were also attacked on this occasion.
operation of Special Kommando 7a.
As Document Steimle 20, Exhibit No. 19 I submit excerpts from the reports of events, No. 86 to No. 89 of the 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th of September, 1941, from which again it becomes evident that no reports have been received from the Einsatzgruppe B.
As Document Steimle No. 21, Exhibit No. 20, I submit the confirmed excerpt from the report of events No. 90 of the 21st of September, 1941. From this it becomes evident that the Soviet Russians, before they evacuated these places, they evacuated the population and that on this occasion the Jews were specially aided and helped, and specially it is mentioned here that the Red Army, before they left plundered and destroyed everything of any economical value and it is emphasized that in Veliki Luki, which again is in the sphere of command of SK 7a, even the railroad tracks were taken away.
As Document Steimle No. 22 Exhibit No. 21, I submit here report of events No. 91 of 23rd September 1941. This report of events contains a report of Einsatzgruppe B. However, this report only deals with reports of an economical nature which enlighten the reader concerning the agricultural position, the food supply of the civilian population, and the labor situation among the population. A report concerning the executive activity of Einsatzgruppe B and therefore also Sk 7a is not contained therein. This report I would like to have regarded as an example of how normal SD reporting was carried out.
As the next document I offer Document Steimle No. 23, Exhibit No. 22. It is a report of events No. 92 of the 23rd September, 1941, which the prosecution has offered together with a number of other excerpts as Exhibit No. 64. From the excerpt of this report of events it becomes clearly evident how the public security was increasingly threatened, public security, was endangered by partisans in the occupied territory of the Einsatzgruppe B. In this it is confirmed that the parrisans have taken to calling meetings of the population, threatening individual civilians, and destroying food supply stores and therefore keep the population in a constant state of unrest.
It is also emphasized that partisan activity, especially in the extensive swamp and forest territories, is very active because in these territories they can hide very well and it is very difficult to combat them. Special Kommando 7a, that is in the territory of the town Demidov, there are large forests. Furthermore, this report confirms that the partisans were divided into units which were equipped in a military way but operated in civilian clothes and had been provided with artillery. The interrogation of a partisan who had been captured resulted in the information that partisan schools had been installed in which partisans were trained for their future activities. The problem of partisans is being dealt with in this report and it is called a very serious problem. Furtheremore, the Special Kommando 7a reports explicitly that in a number of localities extensive actions have been carried out against partisans. However, they did not succeed in arresting partisans as these had meanwhile fled. Furthermore, it is mentioned that Sk 7a carried out a cleansing action in the village Wjasjmeny during which twelve people had been arrested. Of these twelve people eight could be proved to be acting as partisans. Wehrmacht is mentioned but did not result in anything at all as the partisans succeeded in vanishing in the extensive woods.
As my next document I offer Document Steimle 24, Exhibit No. 23. It contains reports of events Nos. 93 to 96, of 24th September, 1941, up to the 27th of September, 1941. In these reports of events again no reports of the Einsatzgruppe B are contained.
As Document Steimle No. 25, Exhibit No. 24, I offer report of events No. 97 of 28 September 1941. This document contains a very enlightening report about the manner of working of the partisans.
It explains tactics with which they operated in the territory behind the German Army. It is specially emphasized that they always continuously threatened the rear lines of the German units. The document also shows through in this explicit report that the partisan activity constituted a considerable danger, and combating and fighting it was the main task of the Special Kommandos which had to be carried out immediately.
As Document Steimle No. 26, Exhibit No. 25, I submit excerpts from reports of events Nos. 98 up to 105 of the 29th of September up to 5th of October, 1941. Again no reports of Einsatzgruppe B are contained therein.
As Document Steimle No.27, Exhibit No. 26, I submit an excerpt from the report of events No.106 of the 7th of October, 1941. The excerpt contains a short statement concerning the marching route of Special Komnando 7a and it proves the fact that according to the assignment they had to advance together with the 9th Army and they were in immediate contact with the combat troops. Again the necessity is pointed out to carry out an operation together with units of the Wehrmacht against an extensive and very dangerous partisans.
As Document Steimle No. 28, Exhibit No. 27, I submit a report of events No. 107 of 8th of October, 1941. This report of events contains a report ox the Einsatzgruppe B which deals merely with general matters, for instance, matters of public administration and economy. Any executive measures are not mentioned therein. This document again proves how normal SD reporting was carried out.
As Document Steimle No. 29, Exhibit 28, I submit an excerpt from a report of events No. 108, of 9 October 1941. This report of events has been submitted by the prosecution in excerpts and it was given the Exhibit No. 60 in Document Book II-B. As the excerpts which the prosecution mentioned might give an inaccurate picture of the various points, I completed it. The document just submitted by me is situation report and shows the danger of the manner of fighting on the part of the partisans who used false passes, and they protended to be harmless agricultural workers, and fought with hidden arms, of the German Wehrmacht.
It is specially emphasized here that former members of the Red Army are found again and again among the partisans. It is also reported that partisans and Communists, as well as Jews, constantly attempted, through the distribution of Bolshevist leaflets, to try to freighten the civilian population and to spread propaganda through this medium. Special Kommando 7a reports that in the dense forests southeast of Demidov a large number of partisans had been discovered, for the fighting of which AOK, the Army High Command 9, had put two divisions at their disposal. In the progress of this action a number of people, namely 693, were arrested and interrogated. Of this about two-thirds were immediately released again as beyond suspicion. 72 civilians could be determined to be former members of the Red Army and were immediately taken over into a prisoners of war camp. Reports about Special Kommando 7a describe the special task, which a special group of the Army High Command carried out in a number of localities in the sector Welish, a number of operations against partisan groups, during the course of which altogether 27 partisans were arrested and after a proper investigation had to be shot.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you omit purposely Exhibit No. 27, the number?
DR. MAYER: This is Exhibit No. 26, Document No. 27. Document No. 28 is Exhibit No. 27: Document No. 29 is Exhibit No. 28; Document No. 30 is Exhibit No. 29.
THE PRESIDENT: Document No. 28 seems to not be in its regular place.
DR. MAYER: I shall try and find out from the English document book, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Why not try to straighten that our during the recess?
DR. MAYER: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:45.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: Take your seats, please.
DR. MAYER: Mayer for Steimle. morning. The Document Number 27, Exhibit Number 26, is the Operation Report No. 106, dated 7th of October 1941. The next Operation Report, which is No. 107, has the Document Number 28 in my German text but in the English Document Book this report too got the Number 27 by mistake. Therefore, the Operation Report No, 107 dated 8th of October 41 must have the Document No. 28, and the Exhibit No. 27 in the English. I think that clarifies it.
May I then proceed please, your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Please.
DR. MAYER: As the next document I offer Document Steimle No. 30 Exhibit No. 29. These are excerpts from the Operation Reports Numbers 109 and 121, dated the 10th of October and the 22nd of October 1941. They contain no reports from Einsatzgruppe B.
As Document Steimle No. 31, Exhibit No. 30, I submit excerpts from the Report No. 122, dated the 23rd of October 1941. This excerpt does contain a report from Einsatzgruppe B, which only concerns itself with church questions and economic questions which are of no interest here.
As Steimle Document No. 32, Exhibit No. 31, I submit an excerpt from the Operation Report 123 of the 24th of October 1914. Here it is established that the Partisan activities are a gain extraordinarily strong and that in the Velikie Luki along 19 reports about partisan activities have been received. The constant and serious threat of the rear lines, supply lines, of the fighting troops is always emphasized again. A study of the excerpt submitted shows very clearly the partisan danger in the area of Einsatzgruppe B and especially in the group of the Special Kommand 7A, as it is emphasized again that in the swamps and forest area south-east of Demidov, strong partisan groups are present.
Of interest is also the determination repeated here that the Jews are being evacuated to the east according to plan in an ever increasing degree by the Red Army. Therefore it is always reported again and again the places through which the evacuation took place were free of Jews because they were evacuated by the Bolshevists before the German troops marched in. Special Kommando 7A, among other things, reports the execution of 12 operations against partisans. The operations were carried out with the army participating and 41 partisans were liquidated in this. An attack by partisans on a transport of seriously wounded men in the area of the Velish-Ussviaty, in the area of Special Kommando 7A, induced a sub-kommando of Special Kommando 7A to safeguard the other transports of seriously wounded people and to comb the area for partisans. submitted by the Prosecution in its Document Book II-B, where they carry the Exhibit Nos. 65 and 63. I did not include these Operation Reports in my Document Book because I do not want to add anything to the excerpts from these reports which have already been submitted by the Prosecution.
As Document Steimle No. 33, Exhibit No. 32, I offer excerpts from the Operation Reports 126 and 132. These excerpts show merely that no reports from Einsatzgruppe B are available between the period between the 29th of October 1941 to the 12th of November 1941.
As Steimle Document No. 34, Exhibit No. 33, I submit an excerpt from the Operation Report No. 133 of the 14th of November 1941. Here again it is established that the Jewish population, together with the Communist Party members and skilled workers had fled, after they had been asked to flee by the continued Soviet propaganda. Special Kommando 7A reports that it is advancing and that the bad weather and the muddy roads render the advance and the use of the vehicles more difficult. The partisan activity, according to this report, became more and more a matter of sabotage acts. The discovery of a partisan organization of 39 members and 16 women, is especially interesting apart from the fact that usually youthful people were used for the performance of espionage services.
As Steimle Document No. 35, Exhibit No. 34, I submit certified excerpts from the Operation Reports 134 to 142, dated the 17th of November 1941 and 5th of December 1941. In this entire period, as is evident from the excerpts, no reports were made by Einsatzgruppe B.
As Steimle Document No. 36, Exhibit No. 35, I offer an excerpt from the Operation Report No. 143, dated 8th of December 1941, which shows only an unimportant report from Einsatzgruppe B.
As Steimle Document No. 37, Exhibit No. 36, I submit an excerpt from the Operation Report No, 144, dated 10th of December 1941, which likewise indicates an unimportant report from Einsatzgruppe B.
As Steimle Document No. 38, Exhibit 37, I submit an excerpt from the Operation Report No, 145, dated 12th of December 1941. Here, too, the content of the report of Einsatzgruppe B is evident only in an excerpt, inasfar as the Prosecution, in submitting its excerpts from the same document, which is in Document Book II-B, under Exhibit No. 86, did not bring this.
As Steimle Document No. 39, Exhibit No. 38, I submit an excerpt from the Operation Report No. 146, dated the 15th of December 1941. It contains parts of a report in which it is established that the flight of Jews towards the east continues before the advancing German troops. It also is specially reported here about the destruction battalions which the Soviets set up for the rear lines of communications of the German troops and which were made up of civilians. Their mission was the carrying out of large sabotage actions. a single document which is a supplement to Document Book I.
As Steimle Document No. 40, Exhibit No. 39, I offer a further affidavit by Karl Radl, dated 25 of November 1947. Radl says here that the 9th Army had made a proclamation in Russian and German in the area of Special Kommando 7A before the time when Steimle was leader of this kommando, according to which all former members of the Soviet Army had to report to the nearest German unit for registration.
A non-compliance with this order resulted in the fact that these former Red Army men were treated as franctikeurs and could be punished by the death. This order by the 9th Army was not directed against uniformed Russian units which operated behind the German lines. Your Honor --
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Mayer, as a matter of curiosity --- Just as a matter of curiosity, if an un-uniformed Soviet soldier registered, reported and said, "Yes, I am a Russian Soldier, but I am wearing civilian clothes," wouldn't he be subject to the death penalty just because of that fact?
DR. MAYER: I can't say offhand, Your Honor. It would depend on the circumstances and that it depends on what the alleged soldier would be charged with.
THE PRESIDENT: But that's a rule in war, that a member of the armed forces in operation, if caught in civilian clothing is treated as a spy and therefore subject to the death penalty forthwith. Just what do you intend to establish by this affidavit, Dr. Mayer?
DR. MAYER: This affidavit is offered to establish that Russian soldiers, who were captured as such were not shot. In one of the documents an expression is used which might give some doubt about this. That is why I submitted this document.
THE PRESIDENT: There is one sentence here which supports what you have said and which I had not seen before; "This ordinance is not directed against uniformed Russian units operating behind the German lines," but my original observation holds ture, that a Red Army soldier in civilian clothes would certainly be very foolish to present himself for registration, because it would mean inevitably his death.
DR. MAYER: Yes, Your Honor. I would also like to point out that some time ago, I sent a letter to the Secretary-General with the request of having a number of incorrect translations corrected which were found when the German transcript was compared with the English transcript. I do not know whether this request has already been given to the prosecution and what has been done about it. As a matter of precaution and as the result of the number of incorrect English translation, I would like to point out one thing that proved to be very important. This very point has given cause to the Tribunal to ask a few questions of the Defendant Steimle which probably would not have come up if the testimony of the Defendant Steimle as given in the German transcript would have been correctly interpreted into English.
MR. GLANCY: May it please the Tribunal, I personally am not aware of any application of this type. Perhaps the Doctor could inform me as to the date of this application.
THE PRESIDENT: Well the simpler way would be to find out if the Secretary General has received that request. Are you familiar with it, Mr. Knapp?
MR. KNAPP: No, I am not, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General is directed to look for this request filed on the part of Dr. Mayer.
DR. GLANCY: I find here, Sir, that the application to the Secretary General is dated as of the 8th of January. I am sure the Doctor is aware of the attitude of the prosecution, as far as helpfulness and cooperation is concerned. If there is anything at all we can do to aid him in this respect, we will gladly do so.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Mayer, will you please confer with Mr. Glancy after you have finished with your presentationa and see if you can agree on the modus operandi in correcting these errors and in deciding the corrections which can be made.
DR. MAYER: Yes, Your Honor. May I point out this one matter? Steimle about the concept of so-called suspected partisans, and the point of departure is that Steimle said on the witness stand that a part of these people suspected of being partisans had been people who in some form had provided a voluntary assistance. Actually, however, Steimle -- again quoting from the German transcript pected of being partisans had to be convicted of special assistance if they were to be called to account as people suspected of being partisans. Just this misunderstanding is based on the incorrect translation.
In the German wording of the transcript on page 2,001, dated 5th of November, 1947, it says in reference to this question, and I quote, "Furthermore in some few cases so-called partisan suspects were shot. By this one meant people about whom it could at least be proved that they voluntarily assisted the partisans." The wording in the prosecution's book is incorrectly translated, namely with the words, "Among them were people," instead of "Those who are understood to be people."
MR. GLANCY: There is one question I would like to ask, Sir, the source of Dr. Mayer's information, whether or not it is from the German transcript, the English transcript, or from the automatic tape. The automatic tape is, of course, the final authority and a comparison would have to be made between the transcript and that before we could make the correction.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Mayer, as I indicated before, if you will confer with Mr. Glancy on these various corrections, you can either arrive at an agreement or reference can be had to the sound take and then once it is determined that corrections are required, then we can instruct that errata sheets be prepared to be added to the transcript.
DR. MAYER: Yes, Your Honor, but may I point out that my source is the comparison between the German and English transcript.
THE PRESIDENT: But you see, Dr. Mayer, there is no way for the Tribunal at this moment to make any decision because we have no independent document to turn to. We can only look at the English Transcript. We don't know what is in the German. I don't read German; so that eventually we would have to go to the sound take, so if you will confer with Mr. Glancy and first see if you can reach an agreement upon corrections, then, if you cannot, then you can go to the sound take and then report to the Tribunal and any corrections which have to be made will be made.
DR. MAYER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you give a number to the last document in the Steimle documents?
DR. MAYER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: 29 or 30?
DR. MAYER: 39, Document No. 40, Exhibit No. 39.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, now, are you going to take up Klingelhoefer?
DR. MAYER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. MAYER: (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT KLINGELHOEFER) Klingelhoefer. As Klingelhoefer Document No. 1, Exhibit No. 1, I offer the affidavit of Annelise Mertens, nee Buchholtz, dated 4th of November 1947. This confirms that the father of Frau Mertens, Mr. Adolf Buchholtz, was sentenced in 1937 and confined to 31/2 years imprisonment and after that to the concentration camp for religious reasons. The defendant Klingelhoefer on the request of the affiant used his influence for the liberation of Mr. Buchholtz and it is expressly confirmed that he succeeded in having Mr. Buchholtz released from the prison and thus saved him from the concentration camp.
As Klingelhoefer Document No. 2, Exhibit No. 2, I offer the affidavit of Horst Mahnke, dated 1 November 1947. Mahnke knows the defendant since July 1941, when he was on an official trip to Russia on the order of the German Institute for International Studies, in order to do research work for this institute. In this capacity, he marched together with the Advance Kommando Moscow, since his missions were in the same field as those of the Advance Kommando Moscow. Therefore, Mahnke knows the conditions in the Advance Kommando from his own knowledge. He confirms that Nebe, the Chief of Einsatzbruppe B, tried to bring the Advance Kommando Moscow under his leadership.