DR. VON STEIN: (Inaudible) Well, I suppose so. Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: We didn't catch that.
DR. VON STEIN: I think that there are only another 20 minutes, as far as that is concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, there are 25, to begin with, and then you are moving very slowly and giving a lot of detail which is unnecessary. The only purpose of presenting a document in this way is to generally give the picture of what it presents, but to give it in detail is unnecessary because the affidavit must be read in its entirety, and I am afraid that you don't get as much out of it as if you just told in a few brief, telling words what the affidavit says.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, only a few individual documents needed an explicit explanation, All the other documents are very much shorter and only - therefore, they only give the content as you, Your Honor, wish it to be.
THE PRESIDENT: I see, very well. Yes. Well, Dr. Link, it seems quite clear that we couldn't reach you before 4:30 anyway. Now, the only thing we want to decide is whether you would want to go on immediately at 9:30 tomorrow morning or whether we should go on with rebuttal. Now just a moment now.
Dr. Link, can you give us any estimate of the length of time you would require to present your documents?
DR. LINK: It is difficult to give an estimate, your Honor, but I am almost certain that in about 40 minutes I could finish.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Can you be here tomorrow morning at 9:30?
DR. LINK: If it is absolutely necessary, your Honor, I shall excuse myself and I shall withdraw in the correct manner from the other trial, but, of course, it would be most welcome to me if I should be permitted to arrive at only 10 o'clock, because at 9:30 the decision is expected which the Tribunal was discussing during these last two days.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Yes, well, I can see the importance of that, naturally; so perhaps what we will do then is, just as soon as Dr. von Stein finishes, to go on with rebuttal, because we ought to get that in, and then when you are free, completely free, then you report to the Tribunal and we will see when you will present your documents. But you need not feel under any constraint to report here at any particular time tomorrow morning, and I am very sorry that we had you called and then you couldn't go on anyway.
DR. LINK: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You are welcome. Proceed, Dr. von Stein, please.
DR. VON STEIN: I now continue with the affidavit - of Feder's. which is spoken about on this page of the transcript by Sandberger is the same sector which was part of the territory of Feder's Kommando. the witness stand, on page 2212 - 13, 2397, 2437, of the English transcript, to the effect that the Estonian homeguard and the Estonian police authorities were subordinated to the Kommando of the Army in Estonia at the time.
Seven, Furthermore, Feder confirms Sandberger's statements in the witness stand, page 2197 of the English transcript, to the effect that in July 1941, in Pleskau, - no agency of the Sonderkommando 1 was instituted, but that the Sub-Kommando was subordinated to the 58th Infantry Division of the Army and only marched through Pleskau - at that time.
Eight. He furthermore confirms that he received the order from Sandberger to deal with any GII auxiliary task that might come up for the Army. Number 1 on page 58, Affidavit Strauch, Exhibit Number 7. Strauch makes in this affidavit, from his own knowledge, statements which refer to end of 1941 till March 1942. In those days Strauch was in charge of all tasks of Department Chief III with the Commander of the Security Police and the SD in Riga.
Strauch confirms that a certain Dr. Lange, who was responsible for all Jewish questions in the territory of the Einsatzgruppe A at that time and the Commander of the Security Police and the SD in Riga, that in this time that was just mentioned at least two Staff members in the presence of Stahlecker it had stated that the order, the Fuehrer order concerning the elimination of Jews in the territory of Special Kommando la, therefore in the territory of which Sandberger was in charge, had not been carried out, and that this fact was the more inconceivable as the number of Jews there was a very low one and that, therefore, it had been concluded that Sandberger had not the wish to deal with these matters. Furthermore, Strauch says that Stahlecker thereupon said that he had told Sandberger on various occasions that this order must now be carried out and at his next meeting with Sandberger he would draw his attention to this again. Strauch furthermore talks about a discussion which he had in Winter 1941-1942 in the presence of Stahlecker with the SS Obergruppenfuehrer Jeckeln in Riga. During this discussion Jeckeln told Strauch, amongst other things, that he, Jeckeln, had discovered a number of Jews on an official trip in one of the localities and ordered their execution immediately personally. Strauch claims that he does not remember the name of this locality in question, especially as he had nothing to do with those matters at the time; but he remembers that it is a locality in the territory of the Sandberger assignment. "I think it is possible that it was Pleskau." In this connection, I may draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that in an affidavit of the, Ambassador Winnecker, which I shall submit at a later point, it becomes evident that Winnecker, not from his own knowledge admittedly, but from hearsay, had found out that Sandberger, contrary to orders which he had received, had taken Estonian Jews to Pleskau, where they were living in a camp up to that time when Obergruppenfuehrer Jeckeln got hold of them.
I offer Sandberger Prosecution Exhibit No. 8, on page 53 of Document Book 1, Sandberger Document 18, an affidavit by Dr. Gustav Adolf Scheel. Scheel has known Sandberger since 1933. He was Sandberger's chief of the SD during the years 1935 until 1939. He confirms Sandberger's er's statements on the witness stand, pages 2143, - 44,
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. von Stein, it isn't necessary to refer to the transcript. You are giving us argument when you tell us that it confirms this, it confirms that. All we need now is a general idea of what each document contains and if you only read what you have in the index under the heading "content," that would be just about what we would want. Where you have a very particularly important document and you want to be a little more specific, I think that it would be in order to dwell a little longer on it; but for you to be referring constantly to the transcript and giving us the page numbers, that is not part of the presentation of documents.
DR. VON STEIN: I only wanted to explain to the Tribunal the reason why I submitted the documents because sometimes, without any oral comment, it does not become evident what the document is meant to represent and what it signifies. For this reason I believe that a few documents have to have a comment in order that the Tribunal might see the reason why it is submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, yes, but it isn't necessary to refer to the page number in the transcript.
DR. VON STEIN: I shall limit myself, Your Honor, as far as is possible. Dr. Scheel furthermore confirms, in his capacity as the former Reich Students Leader, that Sandberger from November 1936 up to the time he fell ill in 1939 interested himself in matters of the German Students Association and that in a more extensive way than in matters of the SD. Dr. Scheel says furthermore that through the beginning of the war Sanderger could not possible leave the SD service. As Dr. Scheel, from 1935 until 1941, held high position in the SD, he must be regarded as an expert in these questions and certainly somebody whose testimony carries some weight.
Dr. Scheel confirms, furthermore, that Sandberger in 1941 applied to him with the urgent request that he might ask for him in the RSHA in a capacity dealing with matters of the German Students Association.
Next I offer Sandberger Exhibit No. 9, from Sandberger Document Book I, Document No. 1,. affidavit of Dr. Reinhold Baessler. Dr. Baessler confirms the statements of Dr. Scheel and of the defendant Sandberger concerning Sandberger's activity for the Students Association, 1936 to 1939.
Next I offer as Exhibit No. 10, from Sandberger Book I, Document No. 4, affidavit of Eiseler, who from 1936 to 1939 was in the subdepartment of the SD of Stuttgart, in the security service administration district southwest. He confirms Sandberger's statements on various points, especially the impossibility of leaving the SD service after the war had broken out.
Next I offer Exhibit No. 11 from Document Book Sandberger 1, Document No. 11, page 30, affidavit of Dr. Klaus Huegel, who in 1938 was in the Foreign Department of the SD Stuttgart and in 1944 he was in Office 6 of the RSHA in Berlin. He expresses himself about the character and activities of Office 6 of the RSHA and about the nature, which has nothing to do with police matters, of Sandberger's Job.
Next, from Document Book Sandberger No. 1, I offer Document No. 14, Exhibit No. 12, affidavit by the architect Lambert von Malsen-Ponickau, concerning the nature of the immigration office. Furthermore, I submit from Document Book I, Document No. 10, on page 27, and I offer it as Sandberger Exhibit No, 13, affidavit of R*dolf Hotzel, who in 1940-1941 was in Office 1 of the RSHA and was an immediate colleague of the defendant Sandberger and in 1942 was Chief of the Training Group in Office 1 of the RSHA. He confirms that this secrecy between individual departments of the RSHA was particularly strict in those days and he confirms: "In the group in which Sandberger and I served, Group 1-B of the RSHA, we certainly never found out about any matters of other departments of the RSHA. Decrees and directives of Office 4, we were never enlightened about and we never even heard rumors about them."
der, whose affidavit is contained in Document Book I as Document No. 2 on page 3, and, which I offer as Sandberger Exhibit No. 14 concerning Sandberger's activity in Department No. 3 of the BDS, Verona.
I offer from Sandberger's Document Book I, Document No. 20, page 61, affidavit of Julius Wilbertz, which I offer as Sandberger Exhibit No. 15. Wilbertz informs us that extensive reports of Sandberger's were against matters which were of detrimental effects to the Italian population and that the SD reports pursued the aim to satisfy the needs of the Italian people under any circumstances. Wilbertz furthermore confirms that Sandberger's tasks in Verona, had nothing to do with the field of activity of the State Police. attitude of the defendant Sandberger. All five confirm that it is correct if Sandberger explains to the questions of the President and also in cross examination the other questions of the Prosecution that some measures, directives, of the Government or the Party, he did not agree with. not have the usual Party attitude toward the Jewish question, I submit and I offer as Sandberger's Exhibit No, 16 the affidavit of the lawyer, Dr. Wolfgang Heintzeler who is at the moment assistant defense counsel in Nurnberg, in Case 6. It is Document No. 9, affidavit by Dr, Wolfgang Heintzeler. The affidavit refers to the years 1931 to 1934. Dr. Heintzeler mentions two examples which confirm, as he says, the fact that Sandberger, in spite of his National Socialist attitude, had a very liberal view concerning the Jewish question and did not agree with the usual Party attitude toward the Jewish question. teacher Johanna Haist, Sandberger Document Book 1, Document No. 6, referring to the year 1933, which confirms the fact that Sandberger had no anti Jewish attitude.
I offer as Exhibit Sandberger No. 18, from Document Book 1, Document No. 8, affidavit by Karl Heinz Hederich, an engineer, referring to the year 1944 and describing successful attempts of the witness Hederich and the defendant Sandberger concerning the improvement of the situation of the Jewish personalities in Budapest and in Berlin. berger in 1938 supported agencies of the Protestant Party in Wurtenburg to improve the situation and the work of the church and to eliminate any obstacles which might be caused by other agencies. Sandberger acted in this, within the sphere of his Protestant activities, for the German Students Associations and in agreement with his chief, Dr. Gustav Adolf Scheel. The affidavit of Parson Dr. Eberhard Mueller refers to the same incident. It is Sandberger Book I, Document No. 16, which I offer as Sandberger Exhibit No. 19. The Parson, Dr. Eberhard Mueller, who was at that time General Secretary of the German Christian Students' Associations, representing the German Branch of the Christian student World Union. He is today the chief of all Protestant Christian academies in Germany.
DR. VON STEIN: (Continued) Person Dr. Mueller established among other things that the motive for Sandberger's conduct was that he agreed with the opinion of his chief, Dr. Scheel, that a prohibition of church work did not agree with the idealistic attitude of the National Socialists. Parson Dr. Mueller furthermore confirms that Sandberger through his conduct endangered himself and his position considerably because obviously in the circles of the German Christian Students Association it was again and again discussed that the Reich Students leadership had made it possible for this work to be carried on. These statements on the part of Parson Dr. Eberhard Mueller confirm the next affidavit which goes beyond these borders. I offer it as Exhibit 20. It is Sandberger Book I, Document 17, on page 47. This is the affidavit of Oberkirchenrat "Senior Church Councillor) Wilhelm Pressel in Stuttgart. He was the students' Parson of the Protestant church in Tuebingen and has known Sandberger since 1931. Since 1933 Oberkirchenrat Pressel, up to this very day, is a close collaborator of District Bishop Wurm in Stuttgart. Bishop Wurm during this time was the leader of the Protestant Church in Wuerttemberg. Since 1945 he is President of the Protestant Church in Germany. Concerning the friendly attitude that Sandberger took toward the church in 1938, as stated by Parson Dr. Mueller Oberkirchenrat Pressel says, literally, "that Dr. Sandberger conducted these discussions in so loyal and proper manner although my political - - -
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, Dr. von Stein, the interpreter wants to confirm a certain word. DR. VON STEIN: I shall repeat what I have just been reading. Oberkirchenrat Pressel says literally, that Dr. Sandberger conducted these discussions with the said result in such a loyal and decent manner although Sandberger knew about the fact that I was politically persecuted in this case. Oberkirchenrat Pressel was known to him and I think it is very humble of him and I shall never forget this. Sandberger's behaviour and conduct in 1938 is described by Oberkirchenrat Pressel and he says that this group in public were representatives of the idealistic and decent group of the NSDAP who attempted to suppress any forced measures within the party or make them impossible.
Concerning Sandberger's attitude in the years 1931 and 1932 Oberkirchenrat Pressel says from his own knowledge: "I met him in those days as a man of idealistic and decent character. For idealistic reasons he joined the NSDAP and he was convinced that the leading men of the NSDAP wanted the very best for the German people, that their rules and their basic principles in the fight against dirt and misery and against public corruption and growing demoralization as well as the promises of political socialistic revolution based on law and orderliness and positive Christianity were meant seriously and honestly."
This concludes, your Honor, my presentation of documents today. I have a few further documents which have already been translated and have been here since the 15th of the month but I have not received copies. Furthermore there is a supplement to this document book I-A which I have submitted. I have not heard about this document book up to this date whether translated or not. I now ask your Honor whether he would be able to tell me whether I shall be in a position to submit, to offer these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: You will certainly be allowed to submit these documents. No one will be denied the fullest opportunity to present all relevant documents. We are only saying that the schedule for tomorrow is that we will proceed with the rebuttal testimony to be submitted by the Prosecution. Then we will take up the matter of what is still left to be heard.
DR. VON STEIN: My question, your Honor, was not to the effect whether I would be able to submit my documents but I was going to ask you whether I might personally submit them here in court after the rebuttal.
THE PRESIDENT: Well yes, that was the indention of our reply, that you will be permitted to present whatever documents you have, in court.
DR. VON STEIN: Thank you. Another request, your Honor. Your Honor, there has come to my knowledge that there are a number of translation mistakes, differences in the German and English text.
I have already had a list made of such mistakes and I would like to know whether these mistakes should be presented in court here or whether I should go through with them with Mr. Glancy and have these mistakes corrected in the transcript officially.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, if you and Mr. Glancy can agree upon the correction then it would be enough if you prepare an errata sheet and submit it to the person in charge of the transcript.
DR. VON STEIN: In case there should be any misunderstanding, your Honor, will I be permitted to present these matters in court here so that the Tribunal may make a ruling about these?
THE PRESIDENT: By all means, Dr. von Stein. The Tribunal will now be in recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
DR. RIEDIGER: Dr. Riediger, counsel for the defendant, Haensch. Your Honor, I have made a request some time ago to have the witness, Dr. Menle, summoned from Berlin. He was to testify that Haensch from January to February 1942 was at his place for medical treatment in Berlin. I am not in a position to call this witness here because he is now residing in Berlin and because he will not receive permission to travel unless an official invitation goes out from this Tribunal. I permit myself to make the request whether the Tribunal has already made a ruling with respect to the hearing of that witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have approved the request--Have we approved the request?
DR. RIEDIGER: Until this time I have had no news whatsoever by the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: I have disposed of every request.
DR. RIEDIGER: I shall investigate this matter and perhaps I shall be able to report to the Tribunal about the matter this afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me say to you, Dr. Riediger, that in the event you don't find it that you will have the approval now so that you can inform them at the Defense Center that the Tribunal has approved your request for this witness.
DR. RIEDIGER: Yes.
DR. VOLKEL: Dr. Volkel, counsel for the defendant, Six. Your Honor, I am in a position now to submit Document Book II on behalf of the defendant, Six, after we yesterday dealt with Document Book III. Your Honor, would you please rule whether I may now start with my presentation of documents in order to deal with all other documents now COURT II CASE IX which are available to us in their English translation.
PRESIDENT: We have established that today we will hear the rebuttal and I think we had better adhere to that program because otherwise there will be irregularity in the presentation of the evidence. We will hear the rebuttal today, and then we will take up the remaining documents which are to be presented.
DR. VOLKEL: If I have understood you correctly, Your Honor, we still have the possibility after the rebuttal to submit the document book?
THE PRESIDENT: That is correct.
DR. VOLKEL: Thank you very much.
DR. HEIM: Dr. Heim, counsel for the defendant, Blobel. Your Honor, Monday Mr. Hochwald has made an utterance here that a trial brief had already been prepared and been submitted to the Tribunal with respect to the defendant, Blobel. In that connection, let me state that this trial brief has not been made available to me up to date, and as Mr. Hochwald told me some time ago, this brief is still being translated. I, therefore, make the request that this closing brief be only accepted at a time when it is available to me in its German text. Furthermore, I make the motion that a period be allocated to me of 14 days within which I am in a position to reply to said closing brief.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, with regard to that, Dr. Heim, we will make the statement for all counsel. Trial briefs must be filed no later than the last day of the summation arguments. By that we mean that they must be in the hands of the Tribunal because it will not help us any if you merely submit them in their manuscript form to the Translation Department on the last day of summations, so, therefore, you will need to work out your schedule in such a way so that the briefs may be translated and mimeographed and submitted to the Tribunal by the last day of summation arguments, otherwise, it will be impossible to study them. Are you hearing me? Otherwise, it will be impossible to use them in the writing of the judgment.
As it stands now, 14 days will elapse before that final day, but it doesn't mean though that you will have 14 days to work on the trial brief. And furthermore, we don't know why you need so much time because Blobel's case was finished a long time ago; so we will now recapitulate what the schedule will be for the remaining sessions of this Tribunal, covering the instant case. Today we hear rebuttal. Tomorrow we will finish up the presentation of document books. Next week the Tribunal will be in recess. Dr. Aschenauer, who will present arguments for the defendant Ohlendorf and who as we understand will lead off with the summation speeches, must have his summation speech ready a week from this Friday so that it can be presented to the Translation Section and it can be ready then for presentation to the Tribunal a week from next Monday. Today is Wednesday, January 21. We will hear rebuttals today. Tomorrow we will hear the remaining presentation of document books. For the week of January 26 to January 31, the Tribunal will be in recess. Dr. Aschenauer must have his summation speech ready for presentation to the Translation Section by the morning of January 30. He will present his summation speech to the Tribunal on February 2, and he will immediately be followed by the other counsel in the order of the defendants as they sit in the defendants' box. Counsel, of course, will all be working on their summation speeches during this week of January 26. Naturally, those who are among the first defendants in the first row of the defendants' box will need to have their speeches more quickly than those who are in the rear row of the defendants' box. Is that clear to the counsel?
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I have one question in that regard. If the prosecution will only submit a closing brief to us in about 10 days in its German text, then we only have limited hours at our disposal to reply to it. Then we shall not be in a position to get the timely translation of the closing brief especially since the Translation Branch has a terrific backlog.
PRESIDENT. Mr. Hochwald, when will you have the translation of your brief ready?
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, we haven't finished all of our briefs yet, and we can work on the final speech of the prosecution and on these briefs undisturbed only after the Tribunal has taken its recess, as we have to be all day in the court room, expecially now when the defense counsel for the different defendants are presenting their documents books. We won't be able to put in the briefs earlier than on the dates just given by Your Honors. We, of course, have these briefs currently translated, and it is by opinion that a brief is a summation which substitutes certain parts of the closing address. It is impossible for the prosecution to analyze the whole evidence before the Tribunal in every single case in the closing address and, therefore, we are putting in, with the permission of the Tribunal, closing briefs. If we would just put in all this summation in our closing address, defense counsel wouldn't have more than at the utmost 24 hours to answer to the summation. It is the position of the prosecution that we are giving in our trial briefs our position what we have proved.
PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Hochwald, we understand the purpose of a trial brief and the only question was, when will you have the German translation of your trial brief in the Blobel case, that is the only question.
MR. HOCHWALD: I do hope to have it in at the latest, 3 days.
PRESIDENT: Very well, Dr. Heim has informed the Tribunal that you have already submitted the trial brief in its English version, but we have not seen it nor will we in any way regard it until the German copy is in the hands of Dr. Heim, so that was the question. Therefore, the answer is, Dr. Heim, that you will receive it within three days.
DR. HEIM: Thank you very much, Your Honor.
PRESIDENT: You are welcome.
DR. VOLKEL: Your Honor, as I have just heard, the presentation of documents will be concluded tomorrow. The Tribunal then intended to take a recess for the following week. Now we shall be confronted with the necessity, as a result of the rebuttal documents of the prosecution, to present a number of other documents on behalf of the defense before the Tribunal.
That will probably confine itself to 3, 4, 5 documents which, however, I am not able to hand in to the Translation Branch before the end of this week or beginning of next week. Since the Tribunal is going to take a recess, a fact which is heartily greeted by the counsels it will not be possible to submit these documents, therefore, I ask the Tribunal to fix a date up to which the documents on behalf of the defense can be submitted whichrefer to new evidence which will be presented by the prosecution as it arises from the rebuttal.
PRESIDENT: You, of course, know that you are not called upon to reaffirm what you have already stated in your direct case merely because the rebuttal seeks to refute what you have said in your direct case. It is only in the event the rebuttal brings up something startlingly new that you need to in any way reply to it, because your case already stands and regardless of how it is attacked on the other side it still remains as your presentation. Now, if you find that there is something which is of such a nature in the way of its newness and originality that you just must reply to it, certainly we will find a way. I won't tell you at this moment just what method will be found, but a way will be absolutely found so that you can submit this evidence which you think to be absolutely essential to your case. As we have indicated on several occasions and which we will now repeat, no defendant will be denied the fullest opportunity to submit what is really vital and relevant in his case, so that when the rebuttal will have finished perhaps tomorrow you can indicate to us if you feel that you must still get some other documents and then we will dispose of it.
DR. VOLKEL: I thank you very much, Your Honor. Tomorrow as soon as the presentation of evidence has been concluded I shall again mention the subject.
PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. GAWLIK: Dr. Gawlik, counsel for the defendants, Naumann and Seibert. Your Honor, my colleague, Seibert, has been told that he will get his closing brief--the translation of his closing brief--in about three days.
The same question concerns me, and other colleagues of mine, and I would be very grateful to the prosecution if they could make a statement when other defense counsel can expect the German translation of closing briefs in order that we can arrange our work accordingly.
DR. WALTON: If it please Your Honors, the closing brief against Seibert is completed and has already been in the hands of the Translation Section for a week. I think it is superfluous to remind the Tribunal that once we put it in the hands of the Translation Section, all we can do is go down and ask politely that they please get it out of there.
PRESIDENT: Yes. Let me state to defense counsel that while it is highly desirable that they have copies of the prosecution trial briefs in their hands while they are working on their own briefs, no rule of procedure requires that they have the opposite trial brief before they write up their own trial brief. Each side presents its trial brief and it isn't a debate. Defense Counsel now know what they must emphasize in their summations and in their trial briefs, and it isn't necessary to reply paragraph for paragraph to the prosecution trial brief. We will endeavor to get the trial briefs into your hands--the opposite trial briefs--but under no circumstances must you wait until you get those trial briefs before you work on your own, and the Tribunal now directs you to proceed on your own trial briefs independent of the prosecution trial briefs, assuring you that every effort will be made to get those prosecution trial briefs into defense counsel hands as quickly as possible.
MR.WALTON: Thank you, Your Honor.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, may I perhaps ask you to request the Prosecution to give us the English copy of the trial brief until such time as we receive the German copy.
THE PRESIDENT: That is an excellent idea. Where there is some delay in the translation section in the preparation of the Germany copy if defense counsel could at least have the English copy that would help them considerably.
MR. WALTON: By the same token, your Honor, we must give to the stencil section to cut the stencil, we must turn the master copy over. I will bring what pressure I can to bear on it. admit the affidavit of one Hausmann I worked night and day and got along on six hours sleep in order to serve Dr. Gawlik and Dr. Hoffmann, both of whom speak English, four days prior to the formal filing with the Secretary General on my brief of Hausmann and I have no reply brief yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think it is pretty evident to both sides that every effort will be made to expedite and accelerate the preparation of briefs, translations and so on. Let us proceed now with rebuttal.
You have something, Dr. von Stein?
DR. von STEIN: Your Honor, I have a question. Tomorrow is supposed to be the last day, for us to present any outstanding documents. I have some misgivings as to whether all documents submitted will be translated until tomorrow. What is to happen to those documents which have already been submitted but can't be presented because there is no mimeograph or translation. Shall we have the opportunity at a later date to submit and present the documents in the courtroom?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. von Stein, if you want to sit down and work out all the things which can worry you for the rest of your life you will find plenty of things to worry about. Let us wait until tomorrow and we will see what the situation is. You are assured that no undue advantage will be taken of you and that every opportunity will be allowed to see to it that your case is presented in its completeness, fullness, and without any deprivation of your rights.
Dr. von Stein: I thank you, very much.
PRESIDENT: You are welcome.
DR. HOCHWALD: May it please the Tribunal, before I offer the documents which the Prosecution wishes to introduce in rebuttal I would like to outline the way in which we have these rebuttal documents arranged. The Prosecution intends to offer 7 document books under the numbers 4, 5, 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D and 6.
Document Book 4 is not before the Tribunal. This document book contains several documents pertaining only to the defendant Rasch. This document book was not assembled yet as the Prosecution has been waiting for defense counsel for Rasch to present his documents first. Up to the present date no defense document book was obtained by the Prosecution and we will hand over Document Book 4 sometime today or tomorrow to the Tribunal and to counsel for the defendant Rasch at the same time. Document Book 5 contains documents pertaining to the solution of the Jewish question in the East. way as the Prosecution has arranged its case in chief. In other words, Document Book 5A pertains to those defendants who were members of Einsatzgruppe A; 5B to those who were members of Einsatzgruppe B, and so on. decrees which are contained in the official German Law Gazette. These decrees are offered in connection with the defense of some of the defendants that they were drafted into the SS and SD on the basis of certain emergency decrees. The Tribunal will recall that defense counsel for the defendants Radetzky and Graf have put in certain decrees in this connection and we have translated other parts of these decrees and these are the documents contained in Document Book 6.
I now want to offer Document Books 5, 5C and 6. Document Book 5, your Honors, on page 1, document 710-PS which I offer as Prosecution Exhibit 194. This document is a letter from Goering to Heydrich, dated 31 July 1941.
Heydrich is charged with the preparation of the final solution of the Jewish question within the German sphere of influence in Europe. The next document 3663-PS, on page 2 of the Document Book, is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 195. This is a letter from the Reichsministry of the occupied territories to the Reich Commissioner of the East, dated 31 October 1941 and the reply to this letter, dated 15 November 1941. From this document it is apparent that the RSHA complained that certain executions of the Jews had been forbidden. The Reich Commissioner of the East requests information as to whether all Jews without regard to age, sex and economic interests were to be liquidated or whether the solution of the Jewish problem should, as the letter states, be harmonized with the necessities of war production. offered as Prosecution Exhibit 196. This is another letter from the Ministry of the occupied territories to the Reich Commissioner for the East, dated 18 December 1941. The letter advises the Reich Commissioner that no commercial consideration should interfere with the solution of the Jewish question.
DR. GAWLIK, counsel for the defendants Naumann and Seibert: Your Honor, the rebuttal evidence is to refute new facts which were being presented by the defense. Perhaps the Prosecution would be good enough to state what facts concerning the Defense are being refuted by these documents. This will enable us to check whether the documents offered are in the course of rebuttal evidence. In this I don't see what the Prosecution is trying to prove in rebuttal evidence. I don't know what assertions or defense are concerned or to be refuted. Here we are concerned with cumulative evidence, evidence cumulative to the evidence Prosecution already presented in its case in chief. But in this rebuttal evidence such evidence becomes inadmissible.
DR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the Tribunal is certainly aware of the fact that several of the defendants have denied that the RSHA or the defendants themselves or the Security Police and SD were charged with the solution of the Jewish question in the East.
That is the reason why we are putting in general evidence on this question.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, we will follow the same procedure with the Prosecution document books that we followed with the Defense document books. At the termination of each book defense counsel may get up and make their objections and then the objections will be ruled upon at one time.
DR. GAWLIK: With respect to the last statement by the Prosecution I should like to point out the following, your Honor. In my opinion it does not suffice for Prosecution to merely prove that the RSHA was dealing with these matters. The RSHA was a large enterprise and that is something that was never contested. The Prosecution should try to bring forth evidence that one of the defendants inside the RSHA was concerned with such matters and this proof is not being brought out by these documents. That is why I consider these documents to be irrelevant, apart from being inadmissible in the course of rebuttal evidence.
DR. HOCHWALD: No further comment, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, we will pass upon the objection enmasse at the end.