Pages 16 through 17, Exhibit No. 16, Document No. 13, affidavit of Gottfried Klingelmann dated the 30th of October 1947. He had been the chief of the Personnel Department of RSHA in 1939. He confirms that the members of the RSHA, after the war had broken out, had no possibility to give up their service voluntarily and that those who applied for release were threatened with disciplinary proceedings. Klingelmann furthermore states that the defendant, in spite of this, applied to Heydrich and asked to be released in order to join the Wehrmacht, without any success.
Pages 18 to 19a as Exhibit No. 17, Document No. 14, affidavit of Dr. Friedrich Stalmann dated October 27, 1947, concerning the activity of the defendant in Denmark. Stalmann confirms that the defendant extensively supported the interests of the Danish population and also the interests of the English and American civilian internees.
Pages 20 to 22 is Exhibit No. 18, Document No. 15, affidavit of Dr. Werner Best, the former Reich plenipotentiary in Denmark, of the 31st of October, 1947, likewise dealing withthe activity of the defendant in Denmark and gives a detailed description concerning the character of the defendant.
Now I shall come to Document Book No. II. From this book I offer and I submit-
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Riediger, we will take that up immediately after the recess.
(A recess was taken.)
(The hearing reconvened at 1130 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Durchholz for the defendant, Schulz. Your Honor, I would like to ask that the defendant Schulz be excused from attendance in court this afternoon in order to prepare his final plea, and I ask that instructions be given that he be brought to Room 57 immediately after lunch so that he may be at my disposal.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Schulz will be taken to Room 57 this afternoon, and there he will confer with his attorney for the afternoon.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, I ask that I may continue with my Document Book II.
PRESIDENT: Please do.
DR. RIEDIGER: On page 1, as Exhibit 19, I offer Document Number 16. This is an affidavit by Wilhelm Martens, of 20 November 1947, which supplements, or rather supports his explanation which he has already given and also is a further clarification as to the period of time during which Walter Haensch was in charge of the commando. This is an affidavit of Lisa Krueger-Martius, dated 2 November 1947. This is also a supplement to the former explanation already introduced previously, and which gives more precise statements concerning the time during which Walter Haensch was in Berlin and apart from that, also gives a description of his character. This is an affidavit by Erika Coulon, of 24 November 1947. The contents of this document show that Frau Coulon and her husband lived together with the couple Haensch in Berlin - Zehlendorf in the same house. They had personal and social contact with the defendant. Frau Coulon explains that the defendant Haensch only at the end of February 1942 was assigned COURT II CASE IX to the East--to Russia, and also that in May 1942 on the occasion of an official trip to Prague he stayed in Berlin during a visit.
Apart from that, the witness also testifies as to the character of the defendant, in particular concerning his attempts to leave the RSHA.
On page 6, as Exhibit Number 22, I offer Document Number 19. This is an affidavit by Dr. Friedrich Stalmann, dated 14 December 1947. This is also a supplement of his statement offered previously of 27 October 1947, and in particular deals with the personality of the defendant Haensch.
On page 7, as Exhibit Number 23, I offer Document Number 20. This is an affidavit by Charlotte Hermstaedt of 31 October 1947. Frau Hermstaedt was the secretary of the defendant during the time of his activity in the RSHA after his return from the Eastern assignment. This affidavit also discusses the personality of the defendant and his continuous efforts to leave the RSHA.
On page 8, as Exhibit Number 24, I offer Document Number 21. This is a postal receipt from Berlin of 28 February 1944. This shows that the defendant at the time received his salary from the finance office of the foreign office in Berlin. following persons who gave affidavits were not party members, Frau Ebbinghaus, Frau Lisa Krueger-Martius, Frau Maria Krueger-Martius, Frau Nevelling, and Frau Hermstaedt. Your Honor, I now would like to reserve the right to submit Document Book III, which is still being completed.
THE PRESIDENT: That right will be reserved to you. Who will succeed Dr. Riediger in the presentation of documents? You may proceed, Dr. Ulmer.
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, may I make another request? I would like to ask that the defendant Haensch be excused from attendance in court this afternoon, and that he be brought to Room 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant, Haensch, will be taken to Room 57 this afternoon to confer with his counsel.
DR. ULMER: Your Honor, I shall present my documents in the sequence in the document books. Therefore, document numbers and exhibit numbers will be the same. Since the document books were compiled while the trial was in progress, on the whole, according to the receipt of the documents, the numbering of the document books has not been done according to subject matter, but in each document book documents are contained on each subject. The subjects concerning the case of Six are (a) Vorkommando Moscow--Advance Commando Moscow, Counts 1 and 2; (b) security police, security service, Count 3; (c) activity of the defendant in the foreign office to support the refutation of count 3; (d) the scholarly activity of the defendant and general character, also to refute count 3. Therefore, every time when I make a short explanation on a document which I present, I shall add whether this document concerns (a), (b), (c), or (d). May I start?
THE PRESIDENT: Please do, Dr. Ulmer.
DR. ULMER: I submit Document Number 1, which also is Exhibit Number 1. This is the operation report Number 17 of 9 July 1941. Its contents deal with the assignment of commando Moscow, which included interpreters and people familiar with Moscow and which was commanded by SS Col. Six, to the 4th Tank Army Hq.
Document Number 2 is offered under Exhibit Number 2. This is the operation report Number 44, of 6 August 1941. It contains the material in the house of the Soviets in Smolensk safeguarded by the VKM. That is a task of safeguarding archives.
Document 3 is offered as Exhibit Number 3. This is an affidavit by Gerhard Utikal, a former Reich Office Chief and Chief of the Einsatz staff Rosenberg, which was given on 16 October 1947. It contains facts about the agreement between Rosenberg and Heydrich from the year 1940 according to which the security police received the right to evaluate documents and archive material in the occupied territories. It also talks about the dispatching of small commandos by Office 7 to Paris, The Hague, Brussels, Athens, and the setting up of such an archive commando for Moscow.
Document Number 4 I offer as Exhibit Number 4. This is an affidavit of 1 October 1947 of the former Colonel in the general staff, Erich Helmdach, who was G-2 officer in the AOK 4 from July until august 1941. He confirms that in the middle of July 1941 Six appeared in the command post of the AOK in Tolodiono , and as far as the tasks of the Vorkommando were concerned, he describes how document archives were to be secured in the Russian capital and he shows his intention of advancing on Moscow with the Division Reich, also that the advance Commando Moscow was made up of interpreters and they dealt with tasks which had nothing to do with liquidations.
Document Number 5 is offered as Exhibit Number 5. This is an affidavit of 1 October 1947 of Herr Oscar Wagner. At the time he was the assistant of the G-2 officer in the AOK 4. He confirms that Six as chief of the advance Commando Moscow in the middle of July 1941, was in Tolochino with the G-2 officer, Major Heldach, with whom he conducted discussions, and concerning the tasks of the VKM, he described the safe guarding of state archives in Moscow, Also he had received an army order for the securing of the documents.
I submit Document Number 6 as Exhibit Number 6. This is an affidavit of 3 November 1947 of the former government assessor, Karl Radl. This confirms that he and Six, became known as members of the Waffen SS in 1940 and the beginning of July in 1941 in Minsk, he happened to come Court2, Case 9 across him again and heard on that occasion that Six was in charge of a small archive commando, which was not part of Einsatzgruppe B, and that it was to safeguard archives in Moscow.
Document Number 7 is offered as Exhibit Number 7. This is an affidavit of the author, Cornelius von der Horst of 31 August 19471. It confirms that the meeting with Six in Smolensk came about owing to an illness in august 1941; the statement by a female member of the VKM that it was its task to secure archives and documents in Moscow. It confirms that the VKM was made up of a small staff of interpreters and the statement that the VKM, the Advance Commando Moscow, could not have taken part in executive measures.
Document Number 8 I submit and offer it as Exhibit Number 8. This is an affidavit of 7 October 1947 of the former colonel of the Waffen SS and artillery battalion commander of the Division Reich from the fall of 1940 to the fall of 1941. His name is Adolf Wunder, who was the immediate superior of Six in the Waffen SS. He describes in his affidavit, Six ' tasks in the Division Reich from December 1940 until June 1941 -Heydrich's repeated and vain attempts to call Six back from the Army service to Berlin. The recall of Six from the territory -- the advance territory in the East on 20 June 1941 to Berlin, Six' resistance to this order and the division commander's reference to his duty to obey. He also confirms the taking up of contact between Six and the Division Reich in the Beresina and the Jelna section and the discussions with the Division Reich in Smolensk during which Six explained the archive task of his commando in which he pointed out that he was independent from the Einsatzgruppen. He said that the strength of the advance Commando Moscow, consisted of 20 men, among them were about 5 interpreters, and he explained his intention to advance on Moscow with the Division Reich.
Document Number 9 is offered as Exhibit Number 9. This is the affidavit of the former General of the Waffen SS and chief of the SS main office, Hans Juettner, of 3 September 1947. Here it is confirmed that in the spring of 1940 Six reported to the Waffen SS.
After having received his basic and reserve officers' training, he was transferred to the Division Reich, and the chief of the security police, Heydrich, had tried in vain to call Six back from the army. Even Himmler himself, shortly before the outbreak of the Russian campaign, ordered Six to come back to Berlin. Heydrich intended to start a disciplinary action against Six because of disobedience and lack of discipline, and Juettner protected Six from Heydrich. Finally, the affidavit contains the confirmation that Juettner only released Six from the Waffen SS after this dispute was formally settled.
Document Number 10 I offer as Exhibit Number 10. This is an affidavit of 3 September 1947 of the Herr Paul Hauser, former colonel of the Waffen, commander of the Division Reich from 1939 until 1941. He assures Six' participation in the reserve officers' training course from September to December 1940, his transfer to the department of the artillery, Division Reich, and his participation in the campaign in France, the campaign against Yugoslavia, and the advance in the East in 1941, he took part in. Also the order by Himmler existed that Six should return to Berlin. This order was received a few days before war broke out for the Soviet Union. Finally, the statement that Six had to obey this order of Himmler.
Document No. 11 offered as Exhibit No. 11, this is an affidavit dated 14th September 1947, by one of the university professors wife, Veronika Vetter, from Smolensk. She confirms her meeting Six and his Commando in Smolensk. She confirms that no executive activity by Six and his people insofar as the local inhabitants were concerned. She confirms that Six returned to Berlin on 20 August 1941.
Document No. 121 offer as Exhibit No. 12. This is the affidavit of former University Lecturer Kurt Walz, dated 20 October 1947. It confirms that on 22 June 1941 Six was given leave from the Waffen-SS to go to Gerlin in order to set up an archive commando from Moscow, She also confirms that Six on 21 August 1941 returned from Russia because the military situation had delayed the capture of Moscow, and he didn't want to take over a Commando against the partisans. D Document No. 13, I offer as Exhibit No. 13. This is an affidavit of a co-worker of Six in the SD Main Office from 1935 until 1943. The name is Karl Burmester, dated 6 October 1947. It confirms the activity of Six as Chief of the Press Department in the SD from 1935 until 1937; of the Section for Home Affairs from 1937 until 1939, and of the Office VII, Office for Ideological Research, after 1939; also it confirmsthe tension between Six and Heydrich that existed and Six' efforts to work exclusively for the University, his volunteering and his service with the Waffen-SS, and Heydrich's repeated intentions of recalling him and ordering Six to Berlin in order to set up a commando to secure documents and archives in Moscow immediately after the war against Russia had started. It also confirms the archive task of Office VII in the occupied territories and the character of an archive commando. Finally it confirms that Six returned from Russia in August 1941, his release from the Waffen-SS in 1942; his leaving asChief of Office VII of the SD Main Office in March 1943.
Your Honor, these documents Nos. 1 to 13 inclusive which have the same exhibit numbers are those documents in this document book which deal with the subject "A", which I mentioned at the beginning. That is the subject "Advance Commando Moscow.", in order to refute Counts 1 and 2.
As Document No. 14 I offer as Exhibit No. 14, the affidavit dated 29th September 1947, of Dr. Werner Best, Office Chief I in the RSHA until 1940. This statement confirms that Six had a bad relationship with Heydrich; at the beginning of the war in 1939 he tried in vain to be released from the SD; it also confirms that Office VII merely dealt with scholarly tasks, and it confirms that since 1939 Six tried to be released from the Waffen-SS, and that Six hated Heydrich.
Document No. It isoffered as Exhibit No. 15, which is the affidavit dated 29 September 1947 of Dr. Wilhelm Albert, personnel chief of the SD Main Office from 1935 until 1939. It contains the order to Six to set up a Press Department and a Literature Department in the SD Main Office in 1935, and Dr. Six scientific aims to carry out this task; his functions as Chief of the Department "Cultural Life" towards the end of 1937, and it also confirms the tension that existed between Six and Heydrich, and the serious clashes between them in the year of 1939.
The Document No. 16 which I submit I offer as Exhibit No. 16, This is an affidavit dated 13 August 1947, by the secretary of the defendant Six, from 1938 until 1945. The name is Gerda Scholz. This affidavit contains the confirmation of the disputes that arose between Heydrich and Six after 1939 and of the lossof confidence of Heydrich to Six. It is confirmed here that Six attempted to be released from the SD in 1939; Office VII was set up and his tasks are described. It is also confirmed that he volunteered for the Waffen-SS in order to be released from the SD. The formation of the "Advance Commando Moscow" purely as an archive commando. Also this affidavit is the confirmation of the fact that Six was given leave from the SD in the year of 1942 and was transferred to the Foreign Office, and finally released from the SD in the Spring 1943, and transferred to the Cultural Political Department in the Foreign Office.
It also confirms the keeping in office non-National Socialist officials in the Cultural Political Department, by its director Six and that he kept officials in the Foreign Office whose political opinions were not popular.
Document No. 17 isoffered as Exhibit No. 17. It is an affidavit of Hans Hendrik Neumann, adjutant of the Chief of the Security Police and SD, Heydrich, from 1936 until 1939. The date it bears is 4th September 1947. It confirms the scholarly activity of Six in the SD; the tension between Heydrich and Six. Heydrich's judgment concerning Six as an "intellectual" and eager to compromise and the clashes between Six and Heydrich in 1938; disputes between the two ever since 1939; and that his application for release was rejected in 1939.
I submit Document No. 18 and offer it as Exhibit No. 18. This is the affidavit dated 3 September 1947, by Ursula Scherrer, Secretary in the Adjutant's Office of the Chief of the Security Police and the SD, Heydrich, from 1940 until 1942. It confirms the estrangement between Heydrich and Six, after 1938; disputes between the two ever since 1939. That Six was removed from his office, and that his application for release was rejected in 1939 Heydrich's disapproval because Six was absent for a long time from the Waffen-SS, and the severe disputes between Six and Heydrich in Prague at the end of 1941.
Document No. 19 is offered asExhibit No. 19. This is the affidavit dated 22 September 1947, the former adjutant of Himmler's Werner Grothmann. It confirms that in the time from 1940 until the end of the war Six never was asked to make personnel reports to Himmler, and that he made no written reports to Himmler.
Document No. 20 I offer as Exhibit No. 20. This is an affidavit of 1 October 1947, of Willi Suchanek, former liaison officer with the Chief of the German Police Himmler.
He confirms that Six never reported to Himmler, nor did he have written communications with him.
Document No. 21 I offer as Exhibit No. 21. This is the affidavit dated 14 October 1947, by Karl Hederich, former co-worker of the Reichsleiter Bouhler. He confirms that Six, as Chief of the Press Department of SD, automatically was taken into the Party Examining Commission without becoming a political leader this way. It confirms the basic fight carried on by Six against persons such as Goebbles, *ohrmann and Rosenberg, and against ultra-radical groups within the NSDAP. It also confirms that Six never displayed any anti-Jewish persecution tendencies. Honor, are the documents on the subject "B", that is, the subject of "SD" to refute Count III.
Document No. 23 I want to offer as Exhibit No. 23, that is the affidavit dated 16 August 1947, of Dr. Paul Roth, formerly Senior Councellor of Legation in the Cultural Political Department of the Foreign Office. It confirms the maintenance of relations with scholars abroad, which Six kept free from Party political tensions, in particular from the Ministry of Propaganda, the Party Chancelry, Rosenberg's Office of Foreign Affairs, and the organization of Germansliving abroad. It confirms the stron* fight Six carried on against people who had Party tendencies and would not give in; that he disapproved of anti-religious and anti-Christian tendencies in the Cultural Political Department, of which Six was chief. It confirms the material support of the RomanCatholic Fu-Jen-University in Peking; of Christian hospitals in China, and the opening of the Jewish Atom-Research-Scientist Niels Bohr's Institute.
Document No. 24. is submitted as Exhibit No. 24, which is the affidavit dated 6 October 1947, by Dr. Robert Feist, formerly Secretary of Legation in the Foreign Office.
This affidavit confirms that Six stood up for the old time civil servants in the Cultural Political Department of the Foreign Office ; the elimination of political thesis in the cultural work; the cooperation of Christian elements through his prhibiting that German school teachers were not to leave the church; that he wanted to have kept up religious instructions in the schools, and the overlooking of Jewish relationship in the appointment of artists and scholars in foreign countries.
Document No. 25 is offered as Exhibit No. 25. This is an affidavit dated 3 November 1947, by Rudolf Schleier, former Minister first class and Senior ministerial Director in the cultural political department of the Foreign Office. He states that Six in his department in Krummhubel concerning the organization of Jews, never on any occasion talked about the physical destruction of the Jews, also that Six never represented any anti-Jewish tendencies.
Document No. 26 is offered as No. 26. This is the affidavit dated 13th August 1947, of the former secretary of Dr. Six; her name is Gerda Scholz. She confirms that Six obtained the material for his lecture held at Krummhuebel from excerpts of a booklet, and that the manuscript was laid down in writing. She also confirms that nowhere the destruction of Jews in the East or all over the world was ever mentioned.
Document No. 27 is offered as exhibit No. 27. This is an affidavit of 10 October 1947 of Kurt Walz, In his capacity as participant in the meeting of Krummhuebel, he states that Six in his lecture on Jewish organization never mentioned anywhere that Jews should be eliminated.
Document No. 28 I offer as Exhibit No. 28. This is an affidavit of 20 October 1947, of Eberhard v. Thadden, former Counsellor of Legation first class at the Foreign Office, He confirms that in no part of his speech in Krummhuebel did Six talk about a physical elimination of Eastern Jews.
Document No. 29 is offered as Exhibit No. 29. This is the affidavit dated 31 October 1947 of Friedericke Haussmann. She also took part in this meeting of the Foreign Office in Krummheubel.
She confirms that in the Krummhuebel Herr Six never mentioned anything about the elimination of Jews in the East.
As Document No. 30 I offer as Exhibit No. 30, an affidavit of Hans Richter, dated 6 October 1947, who also took part in the meeting in Krummhuebel. He also confirms that Six did not make an instigating lecture with anti-Jewish tendencies; and that Six expressed sharp criticism on the anti-Jewish measures of the National Socialist Government.
Document No. 31 I offer as Exhibit No. 31. This is an affidavit of Professor Dr. Walther Kranz, ordinary professor at the University at Istanbul. It contains statements that Six despite objections of the Party organizations made possible his appointment and departure for Istanbul University, although his wife was of Jewish descent. 22 through to 31, concern the subject "C" which I discussed at the beginning concerning the activity of the defendant in the Foreign Office. They are to help to refute Count III.
Document No. 32 ---
THE PRESIDENT: You intend now to take up another subject in the group of affidavits?
DR. ULMER: No, Your Honor, now I come to the subject "D".
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I thought that we might recess now for lunch and you may take them up after lunch, is that agreeable?
D DR. ULMER. Yes, Your Honor, unfortunately I didn't know at the time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:45.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1345 hours.
(Recess until 1345 hours 16 January 1948).
(Whereupon the Court met pursuant to noon recess)
1345 hours 16 January 1948)
THE MARSHAL: There will be order in the courtroom. The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
DR. ULMER: I proceed with document No. 32, which is offered as Exhibit No. 32. It is the affidavit dated 10 October 1947 of Dr. Albert Prinzing, former professor at the Department of International Science of Berlin University. He confirms that the defendant Six mixed freely with Jewish professors and students during the time of his studies at the University, and on the faculty of foreign affairs which was set up according to the Anglo-Saxon pattern of which he was the director. He furthermore confirms the relationship between Six and Heydrich, and the volunteering of Dr. Six for the Waffen-SS in order to remain with this organization until the end of the war. The affidavit also confirms the re-transfer of Dr. Six to Berlin on 22 June 1941, in order to take an assignment in the Archive Unit of Moscow, and the final return to Berlin of the defendant Six on 21 August 1941, in view of the delay of the surrender of Moscow, and his refusal of taking part in the meantime in the fighting of the Partisans.
COURT II CASE IX I offer my Document No. 33 as Exhibit No. 33. It is an affidavit of the 11th of October, 1947 of the former lecturer at the Department on Foreign Countries at Berlin University 1940 to 1945, by the name of Kurt Walz. He confirms that six already from the year 1930 on did not adhere to the Nazi dogma, that he was without prejudice against Jews and that he studied under Jewish professors as for instance Jellinck, Beystrasse and Eckhardt Director of the Section for Culture of the Foreign Office he always demanded freedom of science and carried it out within his own domain; that is in many cases, and he gives the cases of Pfeffer, protected political persecutees from party offices, Haushofer, Eschmann, Grewe, and that he trained his students to practice critical and independent thinking.
Document No. 34 I shall submit now under Exhibit No. 34. It is the affidavit of the 13th of October, 1947, of the former professor of Berlin University, Dr. Karl-Heinz Pfeffer. He testifies to the purely scientific purpose of the Department on Foreign Countries, the assurance of complete freedom of teaching and research in political science, the elimination of the influence of Party organizations; he further states the intervention in favor of Professor Haushefer, related to Jews by marriage, and of Professor Grewe, who had been expelled from the Party, and Six' cultural work as a scientist and Minister, destined to create mutual understanding between the nations.
Now I shall offer Document No. 35 under Exhibit No. 35. It is an affidavit of the 7th of August, 1947, of the Ordinary Professor of the University of Berlin, Dr. Dietrich Westermann. In this he confirms the complete independence of the Department on Foreign Countries from political influences, and the purely scientific aims of the Faculty.
No. 36 I shall now offer as Exhibit No. 36, it is the affidavit of 9 October 1947, of the Ordinary Professor and Dean of Political Science in Freiburg, Breisgatt, Dr. Wilhelm Grewe. In this he testifies to the effect that independent scientists were gathered in the Department on Foreign Countries, without regard to party membership.
COURT II CASE IX The affidavit further bears out that he protected those persecuted for racial and political reasons. It describes the Department on Foreign Countries as the place where persons alien to National Socialism could freely perform scientific work until the end of the war. The affiant further certifies that the Defendant Six suported and aided him and that Six furthermore protected him when the latter, that is the affiant, Professor Grewe, married a half-Jewess in 1943.
I shall offer Document 37 as Exhibit No. 37. It is an affidavit of the 24th of September, 1947, of Dr. Friedrich Schoenemann, Professor of History of American Culture, Exchange Professor of Harvard University. He testifies to the effect that Six stood up for the principle of scientific freedom, and further testifies as to the tolerance displayed by him as Dean of the Department on Foreign Countries against National Socialist pressure. He also testifies to the rejection of party slogans on the part of Six and the independence when facing Nazi ideology, and the support of his professors when difficulties arose with the Gestapo.
Document No. 38 I shall offer as Exhibit No. 38. It is the affidavit of 31 July 1947 of Ilse Richter, Secretary of the Department on Foreign Countries at the Berlin University, from 1939 until 1945. It is here confirmed that the Department on Foreign Countries did not have any relations whatsoever with the Security Service, that Six within the Faculty was a tolerant dean, that, contrary to the demands of the National socialist Students' League and of the curator, he permitted those students who were related to Jews by marriage to conclude their studies. It further confirms that he successfully intervened for Professor Haushofer, related to Jews by marriage, and for professor Grewe, married to a Jewess, against the Gestapo, the Gauleitung--Berlin, the Party District Leadership of Berlin, and the Reich Ministry of Education.
Document No. 39 I offer as Exhibit No. 39. It is an affidavit of 30 August, 1947 in which Miss Countries at the Berlin University from 1940 until 1945, testifies to the scientific independence of the Department on Foreign Countries from Party offices, the trenchant COURT II CASE IX arguments with the National Socialist Dozentenbund -- Lecturers' Association -- and the Party Chancellery on the subject of those professors and lecturers who were not National Socialists, the students who were related to Jews by marriage and especially the Professors Haushofer and Grewe, related to Jews by marriage.
my Document Book No. I. As I have already said, there are another two document books, No. 2 and 3. I asked in the Defense Information Center and in the Translation Department about them and I was told that it will be ready in the translation and memographed at the very latest on Monday morning and that I shall receive it on that date. Therefore, on Tuesday I shall be in a position to submit the remaining two document books in the same shape as I submitted this one. I have made a closing brief.
THE PRESIDENT: If you have them Monday morning, why must you wait until Tuesday to present them?
DR. ULMER: Your Honor, because the prosecution will insist on the 24-hour rule and that must elapse between my receiving the document books and my actual submission in court. Otherwise I could do so earlier. If I shall have them on Monday morning and there will be no objections, I can of course introduce them on Monday morning.
MR. FERENCZ: If the Tribunal please, we will waive the right to have the document books twenty-four hours in advance, provided we can object to the document 24 hours after the document is offered.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that is fair.
DR. ULMER: Thank you very much. Then I can conclude my documents as soon as I get my document books. I have concluded my closing brief. It will be processed on Monday and stencils will be made. I shall also submit a translation of this which I shall have made on my own so that no time will be lost by the translation of the closing brief, so the closing brief can be submitted to the Tribunal for its full evaluation.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have something, Mr. Ferencz?
DR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, the defense counsel in this case have offered a considerable number of documents and we have permitted them to come in without much objection. You will recall that the prosecution was requested to put our interrogator, Mr. Wartenberg on the stand to explain how the affidavits were taken. I would like to submit a few questions to Dr. Ulmer as to how his affidavits were obtained. Therefore, this will just be a matter of three or four questions and I request that Dr. Ulmer take the stand.
THE PRESIDENT: That all depends upon whether he is willing to do so or not. Perhaps he can answer from where he is standing.
MR. FERENCZ: Of course, if Dr. Ulmer has some very strong objections to testifying, as to how these affidavits were obtained, we may withdraw our request.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, perhaps you can make a statement, Dr. Ulmer, as to how these affidavits were obtained.
DR. ULMER: Your Honor, of course, I shall be at the disposal of the Tribunal and will give any information as to the affidavits and especially to the inobjectionable way these affidavits were taken and made out. Therefore, I should like your Honor to ask me the questions which are necessary and I shall answer them, but I think the idea suggested by the prosecution that defense counsel should take the stand and justify himself as to whether he obtained his documents in the correct manner -- I think this is an idea which I certainly wish to object to most strongly.
THE PRESIDENT: You don't need to object. The Tribunal has already stated that you can make your statement from where you are standing and Mr. Ferencz can ask you and it is just a conferencial matter, rather than an interrogation.
MR. FERENCE: In that case, I will limit myself to two questions. Dr. Ulmer, in the affidavits that you took, did the affiants always have the opportunity to make corrections, if they so desired?
DR. ULMER: Every single affiant was told by me in the outline what the important matter for me was, as regards my defense of my client, the Defendant Six was all about, and that I was not interested in any details concerning his clothing or such matters, but only in questions concerning the counts in the indictment. All the statements, therefore that were made and were included, in the affidavits which were taken by me or by my assistant Dr. Voelkel, of course are only statements which these people wanted to make. In no place is there any sentence in these documents which I especially asked the affiants to give, or begged them to state anything; or so to say, included something which they did not want to say.
MR. FERENCZ: Dr. Ulmer, did you ever put dates into the affidavit which the affiant was personally unable to remember?
DR. ULMER: If there are any special dates contained in the affidavits then the affiants must have declared or stated to me that they were certain that these dates are correct. If a special date was on essential matter to me in one or two cases and the affiant told me that after six or seven years, he wasnot able to say that this was the 19th or 17th of July or August, then, if this happened, I asked these gentlemen whether they knew the approsimate date, whether it was the first half of August or the second, and if these people were still in a position to remember, then in this way the date was taken into the affidavit.
MR. FERENCZ: Thank you, Dr. Ulmer.
DR. ULMER: You are welcome.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, of all of the affidavits presented on behalf of Dr. Six, I would like to cross-examine one of the affiants. I refer particularly to Exhibit No. 11 on page 19 of the Defendant's document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, is the affiant available? How are you going to get him?
MR. FERENCZ: The affiant, Your Honor, is either outside the door now or will be within the next minute. This is the affidavit of Veronika Vetter and Dr. Ulmer told us in introducing it that it was being offered --I am quoting Dr. Ulmer -- "She confirms his return to Berlin on 20 August, 1941." That's on page 20 line 5, of the affidavit. Dr. Ulmer also stated that this affidavit was being introduced to show that Vorkommando Moscow had nothing to do with executions. That is about the middle of the page, page 20. I now request the Tribunal's permission to call this witness for the purposes of cross-examination, on the question of how this affidavit was obtained and the accuracy of those statements.
THE PRESIDENT: If the affiant is available, you certainly have that right to cross-examine her.
DR. ULMER: The affiant can be reached through the address mentioned in the affidavit, Stuttgart Korntal, Berstrasse 3.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Ulmer, Mr. Ferencz states that he has already located the affiant and that she is here. That is what he has just stated.
DR. ULMER: I see. I beg your pardon.