It is on page 39. This document confirmed that Braune in his discussions which he had with his departmental chiefs, protested against the carrying out of mass operations and especially against the action in Nordmarka. He refused to have this operation carried out and he succeeded in obtaining a decision by the Fuehrer which prohibited the carrying out of this action. of the 12th of September 1947. It is on page 41. In this document it is emphasized especially that Braune, by forcing this Fuehrer decision, made it possible for Terboven to be restrained from making his own decision in carrying out police security measures.
Documents No. 26 up to 28 confirm the resistance of Braune against other further retaliation measures. of the 25th of September 1947. It is on page 43. From this the following becomes evident: On the 26th of April 1945 the Norwegian resistance movement had shot three German soldiers, one had been strangled with a steel wire, and one had been strangled with a steel wire, and one had been beaten to death. Two Norwegians who had participated in this action were to be shot by demand of the Wehrmacht, after having been put before a court martial, and their farms were to be burned. Dr. Braune managed to prevent that and saved the lives of these Norwegians and their houses.
Nuber 27, Exhibit 27, is an affidavit by Kloetzer. This confirms that Braune managed to prevent the large-scale action which had been ordered by Terboven in Kongsberg-Notodden. Kloetzer of the 30th of September 1947. It shows that Braune objected to an action which had been ordered by the Wehrmacht and the Higher SS and Police leader in the sector Drammen, so that this action liekwise was not carried out.
In each of these documents there are other incidents mentioned as well. Therefore, they are not cumulative. Sipmann of the 10th of September 1947 about the testimony of the defendant. The former student-leader, Sipmann, gives a picture of the character of Braune. He emphasizes his decency and his kindness, his matters, and in matters of general political matters, his refusal to deal with political fanatism, and I may quote here a short passage lerant person. I quote, "He was an opponent of all ready-made sentences. He was a sincere person, who, without any fanatism and without any prejudices, tolerated other people's opinions. Number 30. It is an affidavit of the Protestant parson, Dr. Guenther of Oslo, who has been living abroad for 40 years.
It was his task after the capitulation to care for those prisoners who were still in custody pending investigation, and Braune was one of these prisoners at the time. Dr. Guenther, who was married to a Jewess, would have had no reason to support a person who has been guilty of participation in persecution of Jews in Norway or in the East. In spite of this statement about himself, he regarded it as his duty to show the attitude of Braune to the American Military Tribunal. Then this decision can only be explained by the wisdom of old age in order to show in what manner Dr. Guenther is intersted in the fate of my client, and how he estimates him personally. I shall read a few passages from this affidavit. On page 50, paragraph 2, the last sentence, "Very soon I came to esteem him as a very valuable person who is far above the average people. In a number of long discussions which took place, we tried to find out the ultimate reasons for the collapse, and it is amazing how we understand each other on the deep subject of ideology."
In paragraph 3, Dr. Guenther speaks about the great frankness which Braune showed towards him. In paragraph 4, "Dr. Braune is mentally and spiritually very much alive, with an ardent soul, of an idealistic character. What seems especially striking to me is his absolute truthfulness." And the last quotation which I want to read, which is on page 51 at the bottom, "I have learned to like Dr. Braune as I would a son." I have nothing to add to this quotation.
I now start D ocument Book II. Document Book II contains decrees and regulations, clippings from newspapers, and operation reports.
Document Number 31, I can omit. It is a supplement to instructicn 33 of the Chief of the High Command of the Wehrmacht concerning the maintenance of peace and order in the East. This document has already been offered as an exhibit by defense counsel for Ohlendorf.
Document Number 32, I offer as Exhibit Number 31. This is a photostat. It contains the decree of the Army High Command Chief, Keitel, dated 16 December 1942, on the anti-Partisan warfare. It becomes evident from this decree that the Wehrmacht was instructed to use the most brutal measures in combatting the bands in the East and that the unit had the authority and the duty to use any means also against women and children -- any means that achieves its aim. It says, "Consideration of any kind is a crime against our own people."
Document Number 33, I offer as Exhibit Number 32. It is Ordnance Number 1 on crimes and other punishable acts, issued by the Supreme Commander of Military Government, Germany.
Number 35 I offer as Exhibit Number 33. It is a supplement to the "Hannoverschen Neusten Nachrichten", second year, Number 62, of 16 August 1947, and it contains an article by the former American Ambassador in Moscow, William C. Bull*tt, entitled "The Strength of our New Foreign Policy". This article shows how the American Ambassador regarded the actual character of Bolshevism.
Document Number 37 I offer as Exhibit Number 34. This is an excerpt from the "Neue Zeitung", third year, Number 81, of 10 October 1947, containing statements made by a writer who had fled from the Eastern Zone and had lived in Russia many years. His name is Theodor Plivier. He is the author of the novel, "Stalingrad", and his statements were made to the Dutch writer, Jef Last. They were published in the Dutch newspaper, "Het Vrije Volk". The submission of this document has been announced when Dr. Braune was in the witness stand. It shows that the Volga-German Republic had been liquidated during the war and that probably none of the population has survived.
Document No. 39 I offer as Exhibit No. 35. It is an excerpt from the Wiener Kurier of the 30th of August, 1947, No. 200, 3d year, which contains an article entited, "More than 30,000 Germans are recruited for forced labor in the Soviet zone." The Wiener Kurier is published by the American Forces for Vienna population. Therefore, it can be assumed that this report is correct. With the submission of this document, which I shall come back to in my final plea, I want to prove that the description given by the defendant about the international legal situation which he found when he came to Russia is accurate, and corresponds to the present attitude and behavior of the Russians in the Eastern Zone.
Document No.40, I offer as Exhibit No. 36. It is an affidavit by Anni Kuhfahl of the 28th of July, 1947. The witness is probably known to the President from the Pohl trial. It shows that the mere application by an SS members for an assignment in the Zone of the Interior was interpreted as cowardice and was punished with commitment to a concentration camp.
Document No. 41, I offer as Exhibit 37. It is the order transferring Dr. Braune to duty with Einsatzgruppe D of the Security Police and the SD. It is dated 29 September 1941. I must draw the attention of the Tribunal to this date.
Document No. 42, I offer as Exhibit No. 38. It is a retransfer order to Dr. Braune from Einsatzgruppe D to the State Police Office in Hallo, dated the 25th of July, 1942.
Documents No. 43 and 43a. I shall omit now, because they have already been offered as exhibits in the case for Ohlendorf. The same is true for Document No. 47; also Documents 48 and 49 I skip now. They are already contained in the document books of the prosecution.
The Documents Nos. 44 up to 52, except these which I have just mentioned are operation reports to which the defendant has referred in his examination on the witness stand.
I will give now the Exhibit No. 39 to Document No. 44. Document No. 45 will get Exhibit No. 40. Document No. 46 will get the Exhibit No. 41.
Document No. 50 will get Exhibit No. 42. Document No. 51 will receive Exhibit No. 43, and Document No. 52, will get Exhibit No. 44.
I now come to Document No. 54. This I offer as Exhibit No. 45. It is an excerpt from the Wiener Kurier, 3d year, No. 252, of 31 October 1947. In contains the verdict in the Sachsenhausen Trial. From this it becomes evident that the 16 defendants of the concentration camp Sachsenhausen were sentenced to forced labor as a result of the decree of the Supreme Soviet of USSR of 26 May 1947 regarding the abolition of capital punishment and that this decree was also enforced in the Eastern Zone. This document shows that the Soviet Union is a signatory power of Control Council Law No. 10 and that she changed the form of punishment and abolished the death penalty for her own sector.
Document No. 53 I offer asExhibit No. 46. It is a clipping from the Wiener Kurier of 6 November 1947. It contains the sentence passed by the War Crimes Tribunal Bobruisk, in White Russia of the 5th of November 1947, against 22 defendants who were charged with having murdered over 2,000,000 Soviet citizens. Therefore, this trial is similar to ours in regard to the charge. All defendants, including commanders of the highest military rank such as Generals Ochsner, Traut, Konradi, and Tarbuck, were sentenced to 25 years forced labor in a labor camp.
Document No. 55 I shell skip.
Document No. 56, which the defendant referred to in his direct examination, which I offer as Exhibit No. 46, consists of excerpts from operation reports regarding the various garrisons of the commando.
I now come to a supplement. It is the affidavit of the ethnic German Eduard Schilke of 19 December, 1947. I shall give this the Document No. 57 and Exhibit No. 47. Schilke here describes his experiences in the Soviet Union. The document shows -
THE PRESIDENT: It seems that the numbers are slightly confused. You gave Document 53 No. 46 and then you gave Document 56 also 46. It should be 47.
DR. STUEBINGER: Yes, I just notice that I made a mistake. Document No. 56 should receive Exhibit No. 47, thus making the affi davit of Schilke, which is Document 57, Exhibit 48.
This document shows that as early as 1937, ethnic Germans were deported to Siberia and had to suffer cruelties during the War. It therefore confirms the statements made by the defendant in the witness box.
The last document, Your Honor, I have here in German. It is, as far as I know, not translated yet. It is a very whort document, and, if the prosecution agrees, I shall read it into the record.
MR. WALTON: If your Honors please, before he introduces that, if he will let Dr. Hochwald read it, since it is short and we have not been served with a copy; I think we would be prepared, but I would like to see it before it is offered.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. That is being done now. What agreement have you reached, if any.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the document in itself is certainly material, but I see there is only one carbon copy and from the exhibit itself it is not clear to the prosecution how the original looks and wherefrom the defense has obtained the original. I do not know whether this is purported to be an original letter obviously from the contents, but the exhibit itself is just a carbon copy, not signed, nothing. If the defense counsel for Dr. Braune will explains the form, we certainly have no objections against the contents.
DR. STUEBINGER: Your Honor, it is a letter of the Einsatzgruppe Chief Ohlendorf to the then SS Sturmbannfuehrer Braune of 2 November 1941, from which it becomes evident that Braune, effective 19 November 1941, was to take over the leadership of Einsatzkommando 11B. It becomes evident therefore from this document that between the order of the 29th of September Document No. 41, Exhibit No. 37; more than six weeks elapsed until Braune was able to take up his position in Kommando 11B. say that I have seen the original. I did not, however, submit the original, because Dr. Braune wants to keep it, but he will at any time put it at the disposal of the Tribunal, if the Tribunal attaches any value to it.
It is signed by Ohlendorf. As far as I know, he received it from his wife. She found it at home among his papers.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald wishes to say something.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Your Honors, of course, we do agree with the defense counsel for the Defendant Braune, but I do think it is the right of the prosecution to see the original. In this form that is a question of principle, which I am bringing in now in this form, the exhibit is certainly not admissible, so if we allow the exhibit in in this form, we do it for the simple reason, if we see the original and can find out that it is an original.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no doubt that this is secondary evidence. As a matter of fact, all evidence should be submitted in the original to the Tribunal, but we have allowed this liberality for the purposes of convenience and facilitating the trial.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: We do agree to that, but, nevertheless, we would like to see the original. We then will have no objection that the exhibit is put in in this form.
THE PRESIDENT: Can't you show him the original?
DR. STUEBINGER: At the moment I do not have it with me, Your Honor, but I can get it. It is in our offices. I shall put it at the disposal of the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, can't we accept this provisionally?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Certainly, Your Honor. If defense counsel for the Defendant Braune pledges himself to show us the original, we have no objections against the document.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, proceed.
DR. STUEBINGER: That is the end of my submission of documents, your Honor. I would like my client to be excused this afternoon, if it is possible.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Braune will be excused from attendance in court this afternoon, in accordance with the request of his counsel.
DR. STUEBINGER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr. Walton.
MR. WALTON: Prosecution objects to the first six documents of the Braune Document Book I on the grounds that since these documents deal with his activities with the National Student Leadership and Chief of the German Academic Exchange Service, they do not apply to the issues as laid down in the indictment and are therefore immaterial. through and including Document 28, the whole series of documents. These documents pur*ort to deal with Braune's activities in Norway. Not one charge in this indictment relates to his activities in Norway, all of which occurred after his return from Russia. grounds that the source of this document is not given. The signature of Keitel is not attested to and for other formal reasons as to the form of the decree. to Braune Document 33 on the grounds that the laws issued by the Military Government of Germany are certainly immaterial to the issues in the case which are laid concerning crimes against Russian nationals. or a copy of a newspaper report clearly expressing the opinion of the author. It is neither a document nor is it an affidavit and it has therefore no probative value.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Walton, just a moment, please.
You may proceed, Mr. Walton.
MR. WALTON: Prosecution objects to Document 36, another newspaper account from a Swiss newspaper. I would like the record to be amended to show that Braune Document No. 36 was not offered.
from a newspaper. It is hearsay, incompetent evidence in its present form and is irrelevant and immaterialy. excerpt from an Austrian newspaper, and further objects to Document 39, being a transcript -
THE PRESIDENT: Not submitted, Mr. Walton.
MR. WALTON: Sorry.
THE PRESIDENT: When Mr. Walton starts to object, he objects to everything, whether it is introduced or not.
MR. WALTON: Like Will Rogers, your Honor, I only know what I read in my document books. is clearly hearsay evidence, since the affiant does not testify to anything within her personal knowledge. 46, 47, 48 -
THE PRESIDENT: The defense counsel is missing a great opportunity. Mr. Walton did not object to the submission of Documents 43 and 43a and you haven't even presented them, so here is your chance to put them in.
MR. WALTON: If he does, I may do so in rebuttal, Sir. In my humble opinion they help my side of the case.
48? There is no objection to 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, but the prosecution does object to 53 for the same reason that this is a clipping from a newspaper. It is incompetent evidence and certainly irrelevant and hearsay on the part of the unknown author of the article. 55, since it wasn't offered. offer of the Supplement to Document II, the same being the Schilke affidavit wherein this affiant testifies or deposes concerning crimes against ethnic Germans by Russians.
The Tribunal has also in its order of 9 October 1947 ruled on this type of evidence and on an undated order which was issued from the Tribunal about the same time it did the prosecution the honor of quoting a part of its brief or its objection that if the Russians committed a host of crimes over and over again, such evidence is immaterial as to the issues of the guilt or innocence of the defendants who are German nationals, having committed crimes. This is the same type of evidence and the prosecution therefore objects to it.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will take under advisement all those objections.
DR. STUEBINGER: I havennothing to say, your Honor.
DR. WIESMATH: Assistant of Dr. Schwarz for the Defendant Jost. May I now being with submitting the documents for the Defendant Jost? As an introduction, I would like to state that I intend just to indicate the content of the documents in a few words, since their probative value will be discussed and evaluated afterwards in the trial brief.
I may begin with Document Book No. I. I offer as Jost Exhibit No. 1the affidavit of Arthur Deeken. It is found on pages 1 to 3 of the Document Book Jost I. Contents: Evaluation of Jost's character and political attitude As Exhibit No. 2, Jost Document J-2 affidavit of Heinrich Eissfelder of 4 October 1947.
It includes pages 4 to 7 of Document Book I. It concerns Jost's character and personal action on behalf of political opponents and persecuted Jews.
Jost Exhibit No. 3 is Document J-3, affidavit of Edgar Thomashausen of 4 October 1947, pages 8 to and including 17. Contents Jost's character, style of loving, and support of the Thomashausen family in difficulties resulting from the fact that Frau Thomashausen is a Jewess.
As exhibit No. 4, I offer document J-4 on pages 18 through 20, an affidavit of Dr. Georg Leibrandt of 13 October 1947. Content: Conference with Rosenberg in Berlin, Jost's opposition to the shooting of Jews and attempts to cause Rosenberg to prevent the shooting of Jews.
fact that Jost attempted to appropch Rosenberg about this after he had already been relieved from his Eastern assignment.
passages from this affidavit. On page 18 - -
MR. GLANCY: If Your Honor please, the Prosecution has no objection whatsoever to this document; however, it feels it is more or less cumulative to take the Tribunal's time in reading this document now in its fullness, because the defense has just stated that they intend to cover all this material in their summary brief.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Weismath, unless you intend to read merely one sentence, or a very very short quotation, it would not be necessary to dwell on it at length, would it?
DR. WEISMATH: No, Your Honor, it was merely my intention to read from page 18 of the document book the very first sentence of the last paragraph and on page 19, the last two paragraphs.
THE PRESIDENT: You may read them if it is just a short excerpt.
DR. WEISMATH: I shall give a short synopsis of the contents. The discussion took place in Berlin at the end of November in 1942. Jost spoke very generally about the happenings during the Summer in the East, and pointed out that as for the tremendous events taking place in the East, not the individual SS-man was responsible but only the highest authorities, who had decreed these orders. Jost then pointed out that he himself objected to carrying out such orders. Finally, he attempted to cause Rosenberg either to prevent or to limit the execution measures.
THE PRESIDENT: What page does that appear on in English?
MR. GLANCY: He is giving us a synopsis, but I would like to correct the record, sofar as the English copy is concerned, it states that in November 1943 a conference took place, a year after Jost returned from the Einsatzgruppe.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. WEISMATH: As Exhibit No. 5 I offer document J-5. This is an affidavit of Eugen Faulhaber of 13 October 1947. It includes pages 21 to 22 of the Document Book I. Contents: the number of Jews in the Wil*a Ghetto after Jost's removal as Chief of Einsatzgruppe A, and Commander of the SIPO and SD Ostland in August 1942.
As Jost Exhibit No. 6, there appears document No. J-6, affidavit of Richard Hildebrandt of 14 October 1947 pages 23-25 Contents: Jost's position in February 1944. Jost's refusal to become Commander of the SIPO and SD in the Nilolajew area, Himmler's attitude towards Jost. Jost's induction into Waffen-SS.
As Jost Exhibit No. 6 is document J-7, affidavit of Karl Hennicke of 14 October 1947, from page 26 through page 29. Contents: Jost's opinion on the problem of the executive and his reaction on receiving the order appointing him Chief of Einsatzgruppe-A and Commander of the SIPO and SD Ostland. Jost's intention to revoke this appointment, I just see I made a mistake. Jost Document No. 7 should bear exhibit No. 7.
As further document I offer Document J-8, affidavit of D. Visvalds Sanders of 15 October 1947, pages 30 and 31. Contents: Jost's attitude towards National Socialism and towards the Latvian people.
As Exhibit No. 9 1 offer Document J-9, pages 32 to 35, affidavit of Gottlieb Berger of 15 October 1947. Contents: Jost's quarrel with the Chief of Office IV, Reich Main Security Office. His attitude to Himmler. Himmler's order to draft Jest into the Waffen-SS meant as a punative measure. Kaltenbrunner' s circular letter. Position of White Ruthenia.
As Exhibit No. 9, Document J-10 pages 36-41, affidavit of Dr. Werner Best, of 16 October 1947, contents: Jost's character, his leaving of the Hesse Police Service, his entering the SD, his work in the SD, reasons why Jost left the SD. Jost's opposition to the shooting of Jews, and Kaltenbrunner's evaluation of Jost.
As Exhibit No. 11, the Document J-11, affidavit of Karl Wolff of 27 October 1947, pages 42 and 43, contents: Characterization of Jost. of 29 October 1947, pages 44 to 46. Contents: Jost suspected of having supported Goerdeler.
As Exhibit No. 13 I offer document J-13, affidavit of Gottfried Klingemaan of 30 October 1947, pages 47 and 48. Contents: Characterization of Jost as Chief of Office VI, Reich Main Security Office.
As Exhibit No. 14 I offer J-41, affidavit of Gottfried Klingemann, of 31 October 1947, pages 49 to 51, contents: Jost's refusal to liquidate the inmates of the Ljuban mental institution.
As Jost Exhibit No. 15, document J-15, affidavit of Georg Jedicke of 3 November 1947, pages 52 to 54, contents: Jost's character, refusal of Lohse's demand to clear the Ostland of Jews. of Document Book No. I, and I shall go to Document Book No. II.
I furthermore offer as Exhibit No. 16, Document J-16, affidavit of Hermina Nyhoegen, pages 1 and 2 of Document Book II, dated 23 October 1947. At this point I may point out that the statement of this affiant refers to matters which she only knows from hearsay, namely, the report by her husband who was an adjutant of the defendant Jost, but the defense considered it necessary to introduce this document as a direct proof, as it is not possible to talk to the husband and to have him testify,as he is probably a prisoner of war of the Russians at the moment, and, therefore, can not be taken to Nurnberg.
As Exhibit No. 17 I offer J-17, affidavit of Friedrich Vollheim, 4 November 1947, pages 3 to 5 of the Document Book II. Contents: Tasks of Office VI of Reich Main Security Office. No connection between Offices IV and VI. Jost's rejection of Mueller's influence on Office VI.
As Jost Exhibit No. 18. Document J-18, affidavit of Wilhelm Stuckart, dated 6 November 1947, pages 6 and 7 of Vol. II, Contents: Jost's character. His rejection of the police state tendencies of Heydrich.
As Exhibit No. 19 Document J-19, affidavit of Max Everwien, 6 November 1947, pages 8 to 11 of the document book. Contents: Jost's character, his attitude on the Jewish question, his anti-Communistic attitude, Jost's support of Everwein. His efforts to disconnect himself from Himmler.
As Exhibit No. 20 Document J-20, affidavit of Hans Hermann Rommers, pages 12 and 13 of Vol.II, dated 14 November 1947. Contents: Activity of Krasnowardeisk Kommando, no executions in the period from May until the period beginning of August, 1942. No use of gas wagon, judgment of Jost by Oplaender.
As Exhibit No. 21 Document J-21, affidavit of Wilhelm Waneck, dated 17 November 1947, pages 14-19 of Vol. II. Contents: Activity, tasks and organization of Office VI of the Reich Main Security Office. No organizational, official, or personal connection with Office IV of the Reich Main Security Office. Differences of Jost with Mueller and Heydrich. Judgment of Jost. Thomashausen case.
As Exhibit No. 22 Document J-22, affidavit of Hjalmar Mae, dated 17 November 1947 pages 20 and 21, contents: Jost's attitude on Estonia, his efforts to quit the police service.
As Exhibit No. 23 Document J-23, affidavit of Valentin Degen dated 18th November 1947, page 22 to 24, contents: Jost's assistance to Rev. Valentin Degen.
As Exhibit No. 24 Document J-24, an original letter from Adam Sitz to Rev. Degen, dated 6 November 1947, page 25 of Vol II, contents: Jost's assistance to Rev. Valentin Degen.
As Exhibit No. 25, Document J-25, affidavit of Dr Franz Riedweg, 25 November 1947 pages 26 and 27 of the second volume. Contents: Jost's human attitude and judgment by subordinates, his differences with Heydrich and Himmler because Jost did not obey orders blindly. which have already been received in the English translation. I would ask The Tribunal to allow me to submit the Volumes 3 and 4 at a later time, as soon as they have been translated.
Jost as I want to prepare my final plea.
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse him when?
DR WEISMATH: This afternoon, Your Honor, I would like him to come to Room 57 if that is possible.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Jost will be excused from attendance in court this afternoon and will be conducted to Room 57.
MR. GLANCY: If Your Honor please, this might come as a bit of a shock to the defense and it might expose me to be expelled from the league of conscientious objectors at this time, but I have no objection to the documents offered.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Mr. Glancy, that will be recorded.
DR. RIEDIGER: Dr. Riediger for the defendant Haensch. Your Honor, may I now begin with the submission of my documents. Sofar I can only introduce documents in Volumes I and II, because the translation department has only got that far at the moment. I may now refer to Book I, and I offer on page 1 as Exhibit No. 5 Document No. 1. It is the affidavit of Else Nevelling of 20 October 1947. The married couples of Nevelling and Haensch inhabited the same house in Berlin - Zehlendorf. Mrs. Nevelling testifies that the defendant went to the East only as late as February 1942, and she gives the reason for this.
On page a and on page 2-A is Exhibit No. 6. This is Document No. 2, affidavit of Herbert Dassler of the 23 October 1947. Dassler testifies that the defendant had tried to get acquainted with him in order to find a way out of the RSHA with his help. On 25 January 1942, the defendant had attended his birthday celebration and about a fortnight later he had been his guest again.
On page 3 and page 4 as Exhibit No. 7 is Document No. 3. It is the affidavit of Lisa Krueger-Martius of 29 September 1942. She is the wife of a former school comrade of the defendant, and she confirms the visits with Dassler at the end of January and in February 1942, and, furthermore, the attempts of the defendant to leave the RSHA.
On pages 5 and 6 is Exhibit No. 8, Document No. 4, affidavit of Elizabeth-Charlotte Ebbinghaus, dated 23 October 1947, giving the characteristics of the defendant, especially his ideals and attitude, and his experience as assessor in Doebeln; his dissatisfaction with the service in the RSHA and especially she gives the date of his leaving for the East as 26 February 1942.
On pages 7 and 7-A is Exhibit No. 9, Document No. 5. Affidavit of Maria Krueger-Martius nee Brust, dated 16 October 1947, she is the sisterin-law of the woman we mentioned before who used to live in Prague, and she states that Haensch during the time of his assignment in the East, approximately April or May 1942, had been to Prague on an official trip, and he went to see her on this occasion.
On page 8 is Exhibit No. 10, Document No. 6, a postcard of the defendant mailed by Army Postal Service dated 17 June 1942; in this postcard the defendant tells his wife that he has been ordered to return to Berlin.
On page 9 is Exhibit No. 11, Document No. 7, a telegram dated 24 June 1942 sent by Braune to the wife of the defendant, in which Mrs Haensch is being informed of the retransfer of the defendant, and she is asked to be in Berlin as from the 27 June 1942.
On pages 10 to 10-a is Exhibit No. 12, Document No. 8, letter of the Chief of NSDAP District Office Doebeln Court I, dated 1 July 1936, in which the defendant is informed that the exclusion from the NSDAP has become effective.
On page 11 is Exhibit No. 13, Document 9, affidavit of the former mayor Arno Witzsche Doebeln, dated 17 October 1947. He testifies that the defendant has been excluded from the National Socialist Party, and has been released from his job in the service of the Doebeln District, because of his behavior in front of the Kriesleiter.
On page 12, Exhibit No. 14, is Document No. 10, affidavit by Walter Schallenberg, dated 23 October 1947, dealing with the activity of the defendant in the SD Main Office and later the RSHA.
On pages 15 and 15-A is Exhibit No. 15, Document No. 12, affidavit of Wilhelm Martenz, dated 23 October 1947. Martenz was a criminal agent in SK 4-b. His statement concerns the time during which the defendant was in charge of the Commando in SK-IV-B as well as the activity of the defendant himself.