released. The document is submitted in order to establish evidence concerning the work of Group III-D of which Seibert was in charge. It specified generally about the tasks the SD dealt with. I quote from this document the following passages: "The group III-D (Economy) received from the SD-sections and SD-main branch offices a steady flow of reports on the mood and attitude of the population, as well as on the situation in the different fields of economy Food supply, Commerce, Trade, Traffic, Banks, Stock Exchanges, Insurance Companies, Finance, Industry and Power Supply, Labor and Social Welfare." I go on quoting, "This task of finding out about the mood and the attitude of the population, as well as the position in the domestic sphere, the made reports, by questioning all parts of the population and all classes, with the intention that the chief agencies of state and party be informed impartially about the informations which had been received. All these matters had no relation to what has been called criminal actions in the Nurnberg Statutes." That is the end of my quotation. called Peterson and Schoenherr. First of all on Page 11, I offer Document Seibert No. 7, as Exhibit No. 11. This is an affidavit by one, Heinrich Peterson, giving an example of the activities of group economy end also his opinion of Seibert's personality. I wish to draw special attention to Paragraph 2 of this affidavit from which the activity of Seibert in Group III-D becomes evident. I quote: "In our work it wasn't a matter of individual cases of a personal nature, but problems of general interest in all spheres of economy." Seibert No. 3, I offer it as Exhibit No. 12, This is an affidavit by a former collaborator of Herr Seibert, Hans Schoenherr.
He was on assistant departmental chief under Seibert. This affidavit shows the task of Group III. Furthermore, generally the question of the SD Inland. I quote from this document the following passage: "The SD Inland had taken on the task to find out objectively about the effects of regulations or decrees of the leading agencies and to represent to interests of the foreign workers creatively and critically."
My next document is on Page 15 of the document book. It is Document Seibert No. 9. I offer it as Exhibit No. 13. This is an affidavit by Mrs. Monika Stackelbeck, giving information as to Seibert's manner of working in the group economy. Stackelbeck was a secretary of Herr Seibert. Therefore, she is in the position to make statements concerning the task of Group III-D, and also Seibert's own activity.
Now I submit on Page 17 Document Seibert No. 10 as Exhibit No. 14, then document Seibert No. 11 as Exhibit No. 15. I offer Document No. 12 as Exhibit No. 16, Document Seibert No. 13 as Exhibit 17, and Document Seibert No. 14 as Exhibit No. 18, in order to prove the activities and the tasks of the SD. These documents concern agreements as to the collaboration of the Reich Traffic Ministries with the S.D., the Reich Forest Master with the S.D. and agreement about the cooperation of the Reich Ministry for Armaments and War Production with the S.D., agreements about the cooperation of the Reich Ministry for Food and Agriculture with the S.D.. From these documents I only want to read one short quotation. It is from Document Seibert No. 10. I quote. "The Security Service of the Reichsfuehrer SS (SD), as Information Service of the Party end State, has the special task of informing the leading authorities of the Reich on the public reaction to officieal meausres."
From Document Seibert No. 11 I quote: "The Security Service of the Reichsfuehrer SS (SD), as intelligence organization for Party and State, has important tasks to fulfill. The Security Service thereby is also active on behalf of the State." the membership of Seibert to the SD in wartime was not voluntary but was the result of a legal decree. For this purpose I first submit the document Seibert No. 17 on Page 24 of the document book, as Exhibit No. 19. It is an affidavit of Klingemann.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Lehnert, do you know whether the order referred to in that affidavit -- Do you know whether the order reputedly issued by Heydrich and mentioned in this affidavit exists?
DR. LEHNERT: It probably exists.
THE PRESIDENT: Say in the next to the last paragraph.
DR. LEHNERT: I presume it is in the Legal Gazette of the Chief of the Security Police and the SD.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
DR. LEHNERT: Klingemann, as from spring 1939 up to December 1939 had been the chief of Department I of the Reich Security Main Office. He confirms that Seibert in December 1939, owing to a legal decree, was released from the Wwhrmacht and took up his service in the SD again. From the affidavit it becomes furthermore evident that the repeated attempts on the part of Seibert to get a release in order to join the Wehrmacht were in vain.
Document Seibert No. 18 as Exhibit No. 20. This is an affidavit by one Bau, who has meanwhile been released from the camp. From 1937 to 1940 Bau was Seibert's collaborator. From the affidavit it becomes evident that Seibert, at the beginning of the war, was released from the Wehrmacht and ordered to rejoin the SD. now submit two more documents which are; the first on Page 22 of the document book, Document No. 15. It is a circular decree of the RSHA, dated the 23rd of May, 1940, concerning the special jurisdiction in criminal cases against members of the SS and police units on special duties. The other document is on Page 23 of the document book, Document No. 16. I offer it as Exhibit No. 26 - I am sorry, it is No. 22. This document also is a circular decree of the Chief of the Security Police and SD, dated 16 October 1941, concerning subordination of the members of the Security Police and the SD to the jurisdiction of the SS and the Police.
The following documents testifying about Seibert's character and his personal attitude and contain especially information concerning the attitude of Seibert towards those people who had different political opinions and Jews. I first offer a document which is on Page 33 of the document book and which is Document Seibert No. 23, and I offer it as Exhibit No. 23. Mrs. Bolte, isa Jewess, she makes statements concerning Seibert's unambiguous and decent attitude even during the time when he was a member of the SD, and then in this connection I offer on Page 34 Document No. 24 as Exhibit No. 24, an affidavit by one Klingemann. This second affidavit, the affidavit of Klingemann, in fact shows that Seibert helped a Jew called Czatoto escape to Switzerland. I attempted to get a direct statement of this man Czato, but when I was told his address in Switzerland he had emigrated to Brazil, and his address in Brazil I only heard about one or two days ago. As Herr Czato is now in a foreign country I now had to be content without an affidavit because on any statement of him would not have arrived in time.
The next document is on Page 35. It is Document Seibert No. 25, I offer it as Exhibit No. 25. It is an affidavit of a certain Paul Seidel who had been in contact with seibert in Berlin as from the year 1935. Seidel states that Seibert was never fanatic in political matters and he tells about Seibert's attitude toward the anti-Jewish pogroms in the year 1938. Seibert No. 26, and I offer it as Exhibit No. 26, the affidavit by one Berners, which gives a description of Seibert's character and attitude, Mr. Berners, who was never a member of the NSDAP or one of its affiliations, has known Seibert for a number of years, and therefore knows his attitude toward church, family, etc. I am very sorry that I have not received the translation of all the other document books.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Who next is ready, please?
MR. WALTON: I would like for the record to record some objections, please.
THE PRESIDENT Very well, Mr. Walton. Try to group your objections as much as possible, Mr. Walton.
MR. WALTON: My first one is to the first fourteen documents, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the idea.
MR. WALTON: For purposes of the record, since prosecution did not have the exhibit numbers, we will refer in our objections to the document numbers only. The prosecution objects to the first fourteen documents which deal with the legal activities of the SD and the activities and SD engaged in regarding German citizens and German agencies of the government. The issues in this case do not concern the legal activities of the SD or any particular department of Amt III of the RSHA. This Tribunal concerns itslef solely with the missions and duties of the SD and the Security Police in Russia.
The I.M.T. decision of the criminality of the SD as an orgainzation rested on the evidence before it of this organization's illegal activities in Russian territory temporarily under the domination of German armed forces. It rests primarily on the activities of the SD as performed mainly by the four Einsatzgruppen. Doubtless thousands of worthwhile acts before and after this period of occupation were committed but none of these worthwile acts can atone or wipe out one brutal murder of a man because he was a Jew or because he might at some future time became a threat to security if he should live long enough. Therefore, these documents are totally irrlevant and immaterial. of the Chief of the Security Police and SD, they are incompetent as they refer to other decrees which are not included either in whole or in excerpt form. They are incompetent also in that they are indefinite. They do not show in what manner they are connected to the Einsatzgruppen or to the defendant, and, therefore, the prosecution objects. the prosecution has no objection, except to Document No. 19 in which it specifically objects to the fifthe paragraph in that thisis clearly hearsay and concerns allegations of fact not within the affiant's own knowledge. Furthermore, no sources of this hearsay evidence is shown. Hennicke shows on its face that he never was with Einsatzgruppe D or any other Ensatzgruppe. He was never in Russia and possesses no personal knowledge of what duties Seibert performed there.
THE PRESIDENT: Very Well.
DR. LEHNERT: Your Honor, I want to comment on the first statements made. Seibert is charged with membership in the SD generally and not only for his activity in the Einsatzgruppe. That is all I have to say. That is all I have to say to contradict.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. HOFFMANN: Dr. Hoffmann for the defendant, Nosske. If the Tribunal agrees, I would like it to rule that the witness, Paul Buckert, who is now in prison here and has been admitted by the Tribunal as a witness, that he could be called in the witness stand after the midday recess.
PRESIDENT: Can you estimate the period of time you will require for the direct examination of this witness?
DR. HOFFMANN: Half an hour, your Honor.
PRESIDENT: Mr. Walton.
MR. WALTON: I think that Dr. Hoffmann is right because the witness has been approved to testify only on one point and the prosecution will announce ready at the conclusion of the direct.
PRESIDENT: I think that is a good idea, Dr. Hoffmann. You have him here at 1:45.
DR. LEHNERT: Your Honor, I would like to comment briefly to the objections the prosecution raised, especially concerning Document Number 20 the affidavit of Hennicke. Hennicke was Chief of Department 3 in the Staff of Einsatzgruppe C. He, therefore, has knowledge of the activities of the chief of a Department 3.
PRESIDENT: Very well. Dr. Ulmer. Dr. Ulmer I don't know whether your colleagues acquainted you with the fact that yesterday we absolved you from all sin.
DR. ULMER: Yes, I was told about that.
PRESIDENT: I wish to confirm that wholeheartedly to you personally.
DR. ULMER: I have been informed about this and I would like to thank your Honor. Gentlemen of the Tribunal, unfortunately I am not in the position to deal with Document 11 now because unfortunately in the reproduction department one page has been ruined in the actual machine and, therefore, I have received Document III before Document Book II. II has been promised to me during the course of this afternoon.
and I do hope that I shall be able to obtain it this afternoon end then offer it here. Unfortunately this, of course, is again a technical incident which is not really my fault. I have to ask the Tribunal, as the exhibit numbers in these copies have already been inserted in the mimeographed copies of the Document Books, that a short note should be made concerning the exhibit numbers that they should be corrected to the numbers which are being given by me now, because Document Book III is being submitted before Document II and, therefore, the later documents would receive lower exhibit numbers than the earlier documents. Therefore, I should now like to submit my Document Number 52 as Exhibit Number 40, an affidavit of Dr. Horst Mahnke, representative and professor of the Berlin University. This belongs to the Series A, that is the set of documents on Advance Commando Moscow. This affidavit concerns the confirmation that Six, in the Waffen SS shortly after the outbreak of war with Russia, was ordered in Berlin, according to the example of former archives commandos of office 7, that he should set up similar organization for Moscow, that this archives commission, since the outbreak of war in 1939, was a special task of the Department Number VII, and this task was carried out in a number of capitals and in the special case of the Russian campaign, this archive commando should advance towards Moscow with the Division Reich, however, and should establish contact with the Chief of Einsatzgruppe B. This contact that was to be established between Six and the Einsatzgruppe Chief Nebe caused difficulties forcing Six to return to Berlin once more. Mahnke himself, who is the affiant in this case, joined the VKM, the Vorkommando Moscow about the middle of July. He certified that this was independent from the Einsatzgruppe, although according to an order of the departmental chief, Streckenbach it was to resort to personnel of Einsatzgruppe B. Mahnke certifies the following dates, that the VKM marched out to join the Fourth Army Headquarters at Tolotschino in the middle of July 1941. There final conferences took took place between Six and the G-2 officer, Helmdach.
From Smolensk the connection with the Division Reich was established in order to settle the details of the advance. He verifies the fact that the advance of the staff of the Einsatzgruppe B on the 5th of August 1941 to Smolensk did not alter the tasks of the VKM, as Six aimed at a strict separation of group staff from VKM. He furthermore verifies that the suggestion of an interim task of the VKM after the direction of advance of the devision Reich had been changed would be brought about, but that was rejected by Six, and for that reason Six asked for his recall to Berlin. Smolensk on the 20th of August 1941. Mahnke confirms that Six never issued executive orders nor were such orders carried out by the commando VKM. same affiant, Mahnke, however, here it refers to the set of questions that I deal with here, (b), (c) and (d). Here it is confirmed that he was a student of Six's at the Koenigsberg University. Later on he was active as assistant and lecturer at Berlin University, and he was an honorary member of Office VII. As such, he confirms that strained relations existed between Six and Heydrich in consequence of which Six volunteered for the Waff en SS. He confirms that these bad relations grew worse after the Russian campaign. Mahnke testifies that Six concentrated from the beginning of the war on work in the Faculty of International Relations end that he used Heydrich's death to repeat his request for discharge from the SD. The opportunity was given by Six' function in the Foreign Office where Six became director of the cultural political department. Mahnke further testifies that Six' activity in the Foreign Office was opposed to the ideas of the party Chancellery and other party offices, so that in 1944 the party demanded the dissolution of his department and Six' induction into the Wehrmacht.
Document Number 54, which is an affidavit of a former interpreter of the VKM drafted under Emergency Service Decree, Adam von Engelhardt, of the 5th of December 1947. He confirms the archive task of the Vorkommando Moscow, that the strength of the VKM was between 20 and 25 men, the garrison of the VKM was in Tolotshino, and that they advanced to Smolensk while fighting was still going on. It is further confirmed that the VKM had neither orders to carry out shootings nor did it carry out any. The discharge from VKM in July 1941 on account of illness of the affiant is being confirmed in this affidavit and simultaneously a report to Nebe, on his return from the VKM about his stay in Tolotshino. an affidavit of Gunter D'Alquen, commander of the SS war reporting unit. It is of 13 December 1947: The meeting of Six, the VKM in Smolensk in August 1941 is confirmed here. It confirms furthermore the assignment of VKM to enter Moscow with the advance units in order to safeguard archives. It is shown that no activity of the VKM in Smolensk was carried out in Six' pesence as done by the Einsatzgruppen.
It shows the strained relationship between Nebe and Six and the impossibility for the VKM to advance towards Moscow with the Reich Division, as this division had been switched south in the direction of Tchernigov. Mueller, drafted for service with the security police in Warsaw in 1940. It is an affidavit of the 29th of December 1947. This shows the difference of opinion between Six and the chief of the Einsatzgruppen, Nebe, concerning the question of setting up an archive Komando Moscow, the visit of Dr. Six to Heydrich in order to be released from this function, Dr. Six' return to Berlin from Smolensk between the 18th and the 22nd of August 1941. Furthermore, the document confirms that the affiant on the basis of his experience as personal aide of Department Chief I of the RSHA of Streekenbach, knows that the term "special assignment" is tantamount to the term "front line duty" and was the qualifications for any promotion. The affiant confirms that the date "28 august 1941" on the promotion slip for Six contains a clerical error and should read "20 August 1941" as the end of his activity in the east and should read, as I say, "20 August 1941". The affiant finally confirms that Six was promoted to the rank of Brigadefuehrer in conformity with his rank as official as plenipotentiary and that, therefore, consequently he became honorary officer in the SS and net a police general or general of the Waffen SS.
Under Exhibit Number 45 I now offer Document Number 57. It is an affidavit of the former SS obersturmfuehrer Dr. Friedrich Hilpert of 29 December 1947. It contains the confirmation that the affiant on the 1st of September 1941 met Six in Berlin and that on this occasion he was enlightened about the fact that Six had 8 to 10 days' previously arrived in Berlin. the former SS Obergruppenfuehrer and General of the Waffen SS, Werner Lorenz, dated 9th of January 1948. It is confirmed here that the German Reich authorities had been using the term "special assignment" since 1939 to denote any matters connected with the war.
It is also confirmed that after the outbreak of war promotions in the SS were only considered if proof was furnished of distinguished service in a special assignment since 1939 concerning all matters of war. I am sorry, I made a reading mistake here. It should read, "that after the outbreak of the war promotions in the SS were only considered if proof was furnished of distinguished service in a special assignment, that is, in front line service, and that this was mentioned in the certificate of promotion." And it is finally certified that the term, "special assignment" did not refer specifically to a particular function within the Einsatzgruppe. already commented on at the beginning. Furthermore, I want to offer, owing to the cross examination of the witness, Vetter, another witness, who will testify as to the date of the return of my client on the 20th of August 1941 from Smolensk, concerning the date of his arrival between the 22nd and 25th of august in Berlin. This female witness has made out an affidavit confirming these dates. I notified here by telegram, and I asked her to come here after the last Friday, but she lives in the locality, Vig, which is on the island Foehr, therefore it is possible that considering the present weather conditions , the witness will not be able to travel because the ferries might not be going or some other flood dangers exist. I have not received any information whether she will come or net, but if she is unable to come I have in any case to submit the affidavit which she made out. I would only like to announce, Gentlemen of the Tribunal, the fact that this witness, if it is technically at all possible, will be asked to come here, and I would like you to approve my request to have her in who witness stand and to confirm, and in that case I would not submit the affidavit, which is in my Document Book II. O f course, there is the possibility, Your Honor, I aim net quite sure whether , considering the conditions and the difficulty of traveling for the witness, whether you think it advisable.
to submit the affidavit in any case and have the witness come here in any case. Generally speaking, it is a practice that witnesses appear personally or they supply affidavits. I wanted to leave this ruling to the Tribunal. I am in the position to submit the affidavit, but I do not want to spoil my chances through submitting this affidavit - my chances in fact of having the witness here in the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Ulmer, in view of the importance that you place upon this date, we certainly would not deprive you of the opportunity of having this witness here personally in court, if it can be done consistent with comfort and convenience to the witness, so that we will leave it entirely open to you to have her come here; if, because of what you have outlined it is impossible or even extremely difficult for her to come, then naturally we will take the affidavit and it will be accepted provided there isn't some serious objection on the part of the prosecution to itit will be accepted at its fact value just as if she had been personally presented to the Tribunal.
DR. ULMER: Do I understand you correctly to say if through my personal appearance it would be admitted to the Tribunal or as if the witness really had been in court on the witness stand?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. In the event it becomes impossible for the witness to come here, then you submit the affidavit and that affidavit, in the absence of a serious objection on the part of the prosecution, which , of course, it will be able to support, the affidavit will be accepted as if the witness herself had been present in court.
DR. ULMER: Thank, Your Honor, may I then ask you to permit me to have this witness here after the rebuttal because if we have rebuttal tomorrow and the day after tomorrow the witness will arrive following the telegram which was sent last Friday, then, of course, I hope I may be permitted to have the witness here on the day after tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: That would mean that you might get her here on Thursday?
DR. ULMER: I would like to say that if the witness is not here by the end of Thursday that would mean that she is unable to come here.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. We should like to have everything presented by the closing of the session on Thursday.
DR. ULMER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. ULMER: Your Honor, representing my colleague, Linck, for the defendant, Ruehl, I would like to say that my colleague has one document book to submit and that we would like to ask Your Honor to give us the possibility before the rebuttal to call the defense counsel, Linck, because at the moment it is vitally important that he should be present in the Krupp case, and, therefore, he is unable at the moment to wait for the opportunity to submit his document.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean that it is of personal importance to him to be in the Krupp case?
DR. ULMER: His presence is wanted in the Krupp case, Your Honor. No, No. Now I understand, it isn't that, Your Honor, it is only because of the difficulties that have arisen there. It is important that he should be at the disposal of the Gentlemen of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Immediately upon reconvening this afternoon we will take up the witness that Dr. Hoffmann will present and then if Dr. Linck may disengage himself from the other court room we will have him present his document book, and then anybody else who is ready, of course, will proceed also.
DR. ULMER: I shall let him know, Your Honor. I am sorry , Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Glancy.
MR. GLANCY: Sir, in the event that there will be no other defense counsel ready to present document books, should the prosecution be ready at that time to go ahead with his rebuttal?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, because then whatever witness is called by the defense is ready, we can sandwich that witness in some way or other because we are now sort of cleaning up the odds and ends which still remain, and we won't be too formalistic about the presentation of any piece of evidence which comes in.
MR. GLANCY: Very good, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 1:45.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: Take your seats, please. follows:
JUDGE SPEIGHT: Witness, raise your right hand and repeat the oath after me: the pure truth and withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE SPEIGHT: Now you may be seated.
DR. HOFFMANN: Hoffmann for Nosske. BY DR. HOFFMANN:
Q When and where were you born?
Q What is your present address?
Q Why are you in Neuengamme? Duesseldorf?
Q In what capacity? for the SD Sector in Duesseldorf - to the State Police Office in Duesseldorf, and I continued my activity there, the same activity as I had performed in the SD.
Q Did you in 1944 meet the defendant Nosske?
A Yes. Nosske was director of the State Police Agency in Duesseldorf. in September '44 an order was received which said that Jews and their Aryan relatives were to be shot?
AAround the middle of September 1944 Mr. Nosske informed me of a top secret matter in which it was ordered that all Jews and their German blooded relatives were to be gathered and put in one building in order to have them shot when the code word was given without any commotion. This was to be done as soon as the Allied troops would push through from Aachen to Dueren.
Q Witness, did you see anything about this in writing?
A Yes. This order was put down in writing and I entered it into the record for top secret matters.
Q Can you remember what signature it had? and SD in Duesseldorf. order?
A I belonged to the Department II E. Department II B had diminished to three officials in 144 and one auxiliary employee. Before that the Jewish Department belonged to this department also. The Jewish Department no longer existed because in the area of the State Police Duesseldorf all Jews there lived in a approved mixed marriage and thus no longer came under the jurisdiction of the State Police measures. letter?
A Nosske was deeply moved and upset. To describe this condition today in words is impossible for me. order?
A Yes. Nosske immediately went with me to the inspector of the Security Police in Duesseldorf.
Q What happened there? Then the inspector called me in and asked me whether these persons in the area near the front represented a danger. I denied this. He further asked me what was to be done. I answered it would be useful if one would leave them in their homes.
Q Did you get a decision from the inspector? with Nosske alone.
Q Did the order continue to be valid, to your knowledge?
A The events came too quickly. This order was directed to the State Police Offices Cologne, Aachen, Duesseldorf and Dortmund. From Cologne we heard that the State Police there had taken all Jews, Jewesses and their German spouses and the mixed offspring of the first degree, had collected them all in an old fortress, Furthermore, alarming news came to the effect that the first tanks from the Aachen area had broken through in the direction to Dueren. Thereupon Nosske decided to send a flash telegram to the RSHA, to Berlin. In this flash teletype message, rather, Nosske confirmed the receipt of this top secret matter and he expressed his misgivings about the execution. Duesseldorf, Aachen, and Cologne together, could you approximately tell the Tribunal the number of persons who would have been affected by this? or any other way. It is impossible to give exact figures there but, approximately it might have been between five to six thousand people.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Hoffmann, I would like to ask the witness something about this teletype message.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Did you see the teletype message yourself?
A Yes. I was present when Nosske wrote this teletype message.
Q Yes. Now please tell us as well as you can remember, just what the teletype message contained, rather than to give us an emotional as you can, of course, just what the teletype message contained.
A. As an introduction Nosske said in this teletype that a top secret matter had been addressed to him in which it was ordered that all Jews living in the area of the State Police in Duesseldorf and all their German relatives were to be collected and put --into one building in order to have them shot without anyone noticing it when a certain code word is to be given. The code word was to be given as soon as the Allied troops would break out of the Area Aachen in the direction of Dueren. Then he mentioned misgivings about the execution.
Q. Now, it is just for that reason that I have asked you to tell us about the message. Now you say misgivings, Now, misgivings is an emotional conclusion. What did he say? Did he use the word "misgivings"?
A. I can not remember these details which Nosske stated there.
Q. Well, you remember in such precise detail what he said in reply to the order? You remember the message almost verbatim up to this point. Now, what did Nosske say about this order?
A. Nosske objected to this order for human reasons.
Q. Do you remember what, approximately -- of course, we don't expect you to remember verbatim, but approximately what language he employed?
A. Before this teletype message was written out we discussed the matter and it was emphasized especially that these were innocent people, that many brothers and fathers of the German elements had fulfilled their duties within the Party or in the Army, that the entire order, for purely humane feeling, was not possible of execution.
Q. Well, then, the objection went to the execution of these innocent relatives. Is that right?