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.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, the witness is on her way down here and will be here in just a moment. I request that the Tribunal spend that minute in just familiarizing themselves with the affidavit so that we can save some time in questioning;the witness will be here in just a moment.
THE PRESIDENT: We will read it as he goes along. We are familiar with it. You might consume this time, Mr. Ferencz-
MR. FERENCZ: In other objections?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, if you have any other objections.
MR. FERENCZ: Yes, Your Honor. There is a group of documents, Exhibits 14 to 21, which according to Dr. Ulmer were offered to show what the defendant's activity was in the SD. The SD was found to be a criminal organization by the International Military Tribunal and its criminality is no longer open to question in this case. I therefore object to all the defense counsel's Exhibits 14 through 21 on the grounds that they are immaterial.
DR. ULMER: May I make a statement concerning this objection, that as far as the criminality with regard to membership in a criminal organization, and I wanted to avail myself of the possibility which the main prosecutor in the IMT, Justice Jackson has given that there is no objection for each single individual to justify himself. And of this, I do not want to object, with this affidavit, against the decision of the IMT, but I only want my client to be exonerated of this particular count in the indictment; that is, membership in a criminal organization.
THE PRESIDENT: We have adopted the policy, Dr. Ulmer, of deciding whether these objections are to be upheld after we will have heard all the presentations so that the court takes it under advisement.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, the witness is here and I am prepared to proceed with the questioning.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the oath will be administered. follows:
JUDGE SPEIGHT: Witness, raise your right hand and repeat after me: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE SPEIGHT: Now, you may be seated. BY DR. FERENCZ:
Q. Witness, will you please tell the Tribunal your name and address?
A. Yes, Veronika Vetter, Korntal Stuttgart, Bergstrasse 3.
Q. Are you the same Veronika Vetter who gave an affidavit to be used in this case concerning Dr. Six?
A. I didn't understand it all.
Q. Are you the same Veronika Vetter who gave an affidavit to be used in this case concerning Dr. Six?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you tell the Tribunal, please, when did you see Professor Six for the first time?
A. On the 23rd I came to Smolensk, on the 23rd of August , that is, 1941.
Q. Was that the first time you saw Dr. Six?
A. What?
Q. Was that the first time you saw Professor Six?
A. Yes, I had never seen Professor Six before that.
Q. That was in Smolensk on the 23rd of August, 1941?
A. Yes, on the 23 August, 1941, I returned to Smolensk from the village.
Q. How do you know that it was on the 23rd of August that you saw Professor Six?
A. That becomes evident from the documents which you have and from my diary and all the other papers.
Q. When did you see Dr. Dix for the last time in Smolensk?
A. I could not say the exact date. It was very brief, the period of my working there. Dr. Six was only in Smolensk for a very short time. I told Dr. Ulmer so.
Q. Now I am going to hand you a document to refresh your memory. Will you tell me if you recognize this document?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you explain what that document is, please?
A. It was made out on the 31 of August, 1941, and was handed over to me by Dr. Mahnke.
Q. And that is some letter addressed to you?
A. Yes.
Q. You say that is made out on the 31st of August 1941. Was Dr. Six there at the time that letter was made out?
A. This certificate I received when he was still there.
Q. And you are sure of that?
A. Yes, I am quite certain.
W. You saw Dr. Six there at that time?
A. Yes, I got all the certificates at that time. That was done at the request of Dr. Six, that they were handed to my by Dr. Mahnke.
Q. Do you know an SS-man named Noack?
A. Yes.
Q. What was his title?
A. One called him the Commissar of Jewish Questions.
Q. During the last few months did anyone come to talk to you concerning Dr. Six?
A. Dr. Ulmer asked my by telegram.
Q. Did anyone else come to see you concerning Dr. Six?
A. Mrs. Six also came to visit me.
Q. And when Mrs. Six came to visit you what did she tell you about Dr. Six?
A. She told me that Professor Six was in Nurnberg and she told me to get in contact with the defense counsel because that was very important, because that was important for the fact for establishing what Professor Six did in Russia. Then I said that I couldn't tell what Professor Six was responsible for in Russia because the archives I never saw in Russia. I only saw them when I a
Q. Just answer the questions, please.
*. Did Mrs. Six show you a letter which she had received from Professor Six?
A. Yes, this letter said that I was to contact Dr. Ulmer and to tell him everything I knew about the activity of Dr. Six in Russia.
Q. And did this letter say that you were to be trained in your answers?
A. No, Dr. Ulmer never asked me to say anything in particular.
Q. My question was, did that letter say that you were to be trained or "Dressiert", the German word, in your answers?
A. Yes.
Q. And what is your answer; did you say yes? Would you please answer the question again?
A. Yes.
Q. And then Dr. Ulmer came to see you, is that correct?
A. No, no, I was requested by telegram from Dr. Ulmer and then I went to Stuttgart.
Q. And what happened when Dr. Ulmer came to see you or you went to see him?
A. I went to see Dr. Ulmer, and Dr. Ulmer asked me what Professor Six had done in Russia, what he had been responsible for, and I told him as to the official duties of Professor Six was very shortly in Russia, for a very short period, I could not say anything about his service and his position. Because I sat in the corridor and therefore I am not aware of what these individual gentlemen did in Russia. I was mainly in contact with Dr. Augsburg and Dr. Mahnke, and Dr. Six, I only saw when he passed me in the passage of when I saw him about matters that concerned me personally.
Q. Did you tell Dr. Ulmer that Six left Smolensk on August, 1941?
A. I could not possibly tell the date as I do not remember it. It was six years ago. I told Dr. Ulmer Six was only for a very short period in Russia, and I remember I saw him leave myself.
I was in the hall when he left.
Q. Witness -
A. And the exact date I could not tell him. That I only established at a later date when I was requested, to do so according to certificates and papers which I still had but which I have since turned over.
Q. Then you did not tell Dr. Ulmer that Six left on the 20th of August?
A. I only said that he had been in Russia for a very short period of time. I don't know about this exact date. It is my fault; I really overlooked it.
Q. Are you sure that you told Dr. Ulmer that you did not know the exact date?
A. I am certain that I told Dr. Ulmer that Professor Six was only in Russia for a very short period of time. That I am absolutely certain of.
Q. I am asking you, are you just as certain that you did not tell Dr. Ulmer or that you did tell Dr. Ulmer that you were not aware of the exact date?
A. I had to tell that to Dr. Ulmer because I did not remember the exact date.
Q. Who dictated the affidavit that you signed, was it you or Dr. Ulmer?
A. No, Dr. Ulmer dictated it to his secretary.
Q. Did you want to make some corrections in that affidavit before you signed it?
A. Yes. Dr. Ulmer read it aloud to me. He told me that I could make any corrections I wanted to make. I only wanted to correct one particular point which was that Six and his men were very well liked in the civilian population. But I said, "Not everybody;
not all of them," but Dr. Six and Dr. Augsburg were very well liked and held in high esteem with the Russian population because they aided them on various occasions. That is quite certain. And the others, Noack and Schroeder, for instance, were extremely moody and they were arrogant and they were not well liked at all.
Q. And when you sought to make this correction, what did Dr. Ulmer say?
A. Dr. Ulmer said that was not one of the essential things because the statement was only to give a picture of Dr. Six as a human being, but the Tribunal is not very interested in the picture of Six as a human being.
Q. So you actually did not make any corrections then?
A. No.
MR. FERENCZ: No further questions, Your Honor.
DR. ULMER: Your Honor, may I first ask to be handed the document which was just handed to the witness so I may look at it and know what it is all about?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, please see that Dr. Ulmer has that document.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, this document was put to the witness to refresh her memory on a point of cross-examination. We intend to introduce it in our rebuttal document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Ulmer is certainly entitled to see it now because the witness has referred to it, unless you keep the witness here.
MR. FERENCZ: The witness is here and available for questioning.
THE PRESIDENT: No, I say unless you keep the witnessuntil such time as you offer the document.
MR. FERENCZ: No, Your Honor.
Dr. Ulmer was thereupon handed the document.)
BY DR. ULMER:
Q. My first question to the witness is the following; Has not the witness shown it to me during our discussion, that I even copied it myself and discussed it with her?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, when we read through this document, did I not draw your attention to the fact that this has been made out on the 31st of August, 1941, and did I not remark on the fact that it was made out by Mahnke and handed out by Mahnke?
A. You did not tell me anything about this date, Dr. Ulmer. You only told me that you did not like this document. Why you did not like it, I had no idea, but we never talked about the date at all.
Q. I am now asking you whether I questioned you why this document was signed by Mahnke and not by Six?
A. No, Dr. Ulmer, you didn't ask me that.
Q. Did I not ask you that? You say that I did not let you make any correction in the draft or in the document that you were to sign?
A. Yes, you put it to me, you told me that I might make corrections before I signed. I did not intend to say that you didn't.
Q. Did I not tell you in detail that only what you know yourself you have to state?
A. Yes.
Q. Did I not believe actually that you would be able to certify more than I actually asked you to?
A. What do you mean?
Q. When I arrived I thought perhaps you might know more, tell me you did not know as much as that, because I was only in the anteroom six hours during the day?
A. Yes.
Q. Did I not then immediately take down that you only stayed there for six hours and tell you obviously what should be evident in this document are only facts, facts which you know for certain?
A. Yes.
Q. Concerning the date of the return on the 20th of August, 1941, you say we had not talked about that. But now you say that you knew that the date of return of Six was at the end of August, but not exactly, but the arrival of Six you know to be on the 23rd of August?
A. No, not the arrival of Dr. Six, on the 23rd of August. He returned from the village to Smolensk. That is in my diary. It was the 23rd of August.
Q. But that you saw him for the first time.
A. Yes, ....
Q. You told me, "After the Germans had marched into Smolensk, I, with my twelve-months-old child went to the German office which was in the large police building."
A. Yes. The war broke out in June, and from Juno to August I remained in the village, in Korschena, which is about twenty kilometers from Smolensk. This diary I kept in Korschena, in this village. I have it to this very day. You can see it if you like. And on the 22nd of August I wrote in this diary, "Tomorrow I shall go to Smolensk in order to take my child to the physician." On the 23rd of August, in fact I went to Smolensk. I returned to town. Dr. Ulmer, that is what it says.
Q. What period elapsed between that date - from the date of my wanting to talk to you and the date when I actually talked to you in Stuttgart? What period of time elapsed between the date on which you heard for the first time that I, as a defense counsel of Dr. Six, wanted to discuss matters with you, between that time, and the actual time in which I did discuss matters with you?
