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.
DR. HOCHWALD: I now offer on page 5 of the document book document 1104-PS as Prosecution Exhibit 197. In connection with this document I would like to refer to a typographical error in the descriptive index, your Honors. It should not read "request" from Carl. It should read "report" from Carl. This is in the third line in the descriptive index to the individual documents.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I also object to the presentation of that document.....
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, I think me mould save a great deal of time if we wait until the whole book is presented. Then you can get up and object to each document.
DR. GALIK: Very well, your Honor.
Dr. HOCHWALD: In this document Carl reports to the commissioner general in Minsk on 30 October 1941 about the execution of Jews in Schazk and other towns in this area. These executions were caried out by the German Police. Consideration for the economic necessities of the area was not taken. The Jews were indiscriminately shot in the streets in a sadistic manner and many of the victims were buried alive. The police battalion looted during the action and the Jews were deprived of their valuables in a most brutal fashion. by mistake as it was already offered in Document Book I, on page 46, as Prosecution Exhibit 27. I beg the pardon of the Tribunal for this mistake and would like to ask the Tribunal to cross this document. document NO-4882, offered as Prosecution Exhibit 198. This document is a letter from Heydrich to the Reich Ministry of the occupied territories, dated 10 January 1942. This document is offered as proof that the outlines of the solution of the Jewish question were established by the RSHA.
introduced as Prosecution Exhibit 199. It is an inter-office memorandum of the comnissioner general in Kaunas, dated 11 November 1942, stating that the carrying out of executions particularly of liquidation of Jews, was the task of the security police and t he SD. In this connection I want to refer especially to the date which proves that as late as in November 1942 the task of the security police and SD was not changed and that units of that organization were still active in carrying out executions and liquidating the Jews.
Dr. Gawlik.
DR. GAWLIK: Firstly, I should like to object against document No-1104 which was submitted as Prosecution Exhibit 197. I object to this document firstly because it does not represent a rebuttal document because it does not refute any new assertions made by the defense. Secondly, because the document is irrelevant for what is being described in that document has not been committed by any units of the Einsatzgruppen. I draw particular attent ion of the Tribunal to the letter of 1 November 1941. Mention is made there of Police Batallion 11. This Police Batallion 11 was not subordinated neither to an Einsatzgruppe nor to an Einsatzkommando as it becomes apparent from the documents. says "from the Batallion Commander of the Security Police up to the last lieutenant". The next paragraph says: "I have talked to the responsible Briga defuehrer (Major General) Zinner of the Protective Police Center and I have discussed with him the Jewish action." The Prosecution will concede that this Major General Zinner of the Protective Police Center never belonged to an Einsatzgruppe. We see here very clearly that this Police Batallion which has committed these actions had nothing at all to do with an Einsatzgruppe or Einsatzkommando. In the same letter mention is made of Police Batallion 11 from Kauen. In the next letter, dated 30 October 1941, we see that we are only concerned with acts by Police Batallion 11. I really cannot see what the criminations against Police Batallion 11.
Furthermore I am objecting THE PRESIDENT:
Dr. Gawlik, you remember the defendant the Police, don't you, in Latvia?
You remember his saying that he organized the Police -- or perhaps you weren't in the courtroom at the time.
Well, the defendant Strauch said when he went to Latvia that he organized the Police.
Of course, I know this has nothing to do DR. GAWLIK: Well yes, but it has not been proven that DR. HOCHWALD: If your Honors please, this is a question of argument but not a question of the admissibility of documents.
It "Einsatzgruppe" were active, in close cooperation, with the police, with the Wehrmacht, and with the Waffen-SS.
Therefore we consider such evi
DR. GAWLICK: Your Honor, it is my opinion that this is not only not argumentation but it investigates and checks as to the relevancy and the probative value of this document concerning one of the defendants.
MR. HOCHWALD: May it please the Tribunal. The Tribunal has used a magnanimous and very liberal practice in admitting every kind of evidence from the defense which the defense considered relevant for its case. I do think that it is only fair that the defense give us the same consideration.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, you can be sure that if none of the defendants had anything to do with Police Battalion No. 11, then this document can in no way be used as evidence against any particular defendant. But whatever value it may have as giving a history of just what took place during that time and in that area, we do not regard it as completely irrelevant.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, from the heading of the document book and from the arrangement which we gave the rebuttal evidence, it is clear that we are not charging any one of the particular defendants for crimes which are proved by this document. This book, No. 5, was offered only in order to show again the overall picture of how the extermination of Jews in the east was handled, in order to rebut the contention of many of the defendants that they were unaware of the fact that Jews were killed in the east.
THE PRESIDENT: You remember, Dr. Gawlik, that several defendants said that although they went through the entire Russian Campaign they never saw a Jew killed, because he was a Jew. Well, here is a document from apparently a responsible official, in which he tells of the indiscriminate killing of Jews in the streets. This does not refer particularly to any individual defendant, but is part of the large picture of what happened during this most unhappy period.
DR. GAWLIK: If the Prosecution will agree with me that this document is not directed against any particular defendant, I have COURT II Case IX nothing further to add.
Furthermore I am objecting to Document 4882. This document I consider to be irrelevant. In addition, I am also of the opinion, in connection with this document, that it refers to no rebuttal evidence; no new assertion by the defense is being refuted by this document. In this connection I am drawing the attention of the Tribunal to the last sentence of this document from which it can be seen that the expert in the RSHA was the SS Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann. From further documents which the prosecution will yet submit, we will see that Eichmann was in Office 4 of the RSHA. Furthermore I am objecting to Document 5437, Exhibit 199, also from the reason that it is irrelevant and because it represnents no rebuttal evidence; it refutes no assertion made by the defense.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I do not want to repeat the argument which I have just given to the other documents. The argument is the same. These documents are put in in order to show the overall picture, which certainly was denied by many of the defendants in the witness box.
THE PRESIDENT: We would like to point out this fact, Dr. Gawlik. When you get up and object to a document, you apparently object for the entire defense. I do not know that the entire defense will agree with you because it may be that a document submitted here may even be beneficial to some individual defendant. For instance, in this last document it says: "I hereby forbid the active participation of office personnel in any executions of any sort." Some defendants have asserted they had nothing to do with the execution of Jews because they were in the office. Now, if you argue that this document should not be presented, you in effect contradict the statement of some of these defendants.
MR. HOCHWALD: But, if Your Honor -
THE PRESIDENT: Anyhow, we will pass upon all these objections at the end and we will say that we will be no less liberal in the reception of this evidence than we have been in the reception of the COURT II Case IX other evidence.
MR. HOCHWALD: I thank your Honors very much, but -
THE PRESIDENT: Unless it can be very clearly shown that it certainly is entirely irrelevant and really getting down into the penguins of the Antarctic Zone.
MR. HOCHWALD: As the Tribunal has quoted one sentence out of this last document, I would like to quote the one why I have submitted it. The same document, NO-5437, which is Prosecution Exhibit 199, states, in the last sentence: "The carrying out of executions, particularly the liquidation of Jews, is the task of the Security Police and the SD."
If Your Honors please, I turn now to Document Book 5-C. This document book is a rebuttal document book against some of the defendants who were members of Einsatzgruppe C. I have endeavored to show, in the descriptive index, to whom of the individual defendants the documents offered especially refer. I may point out, however, that some of the documents are of probative value also against more than one of the defendants. It goes without saying that the prosecution reserves the right to use these documents also against defendants different from those who are named in the index. offered as Prosecution Exhibit 200. This is Operational Situation Report No. 3, covering a report period from 15 August to 31 August 1941. This document proves that in the area of Berditschev and Shitomir nearly all villages were combed according to plans. This report gives also details about executions in these areas. I want to point out in passing that this document does not only implicate the defendant Schulz but also the defendants Blobel and Rasch. On page 7 of the document book Your Honors find Document NO-2651, offered as Prosecution Exhibit 201. This report states that seven thousand Jews were arrested and shot, among these seventy-three officials and informers of the NKWD. In Lemberg--and the Tribunal will certainly recall that Schulz has testified about these happenings in Lemberg to a great extent. In COURT II Case IX Lemberg one thousand Jews were handed over to the prison of the Wehrmacht.
In Shitomir, one hundred seventy-eight Russians and Jews were shot, some of whom were civilian prisoners who had been handed over by the Wehrmacht. This document also proves not only the incorrectness of the testimony of the defendant Schulz as to the number of the people who were arrested in Lemberg but implicates also the defendants Blobel and Rasch. On page 14 of the document book-
DR. DURCHHOLZ (Counsel for the Defendant Schulz): Your Honor, I would like to object to Document NO-2653, Exhibit 200. I think that this document is irrelevant. In this document, Einsatzkommando 5 has not been mentioned with one word, of which the defendant Schulz was in charge. Therefore it cannot be seen how it can be directed against the defendant.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please: the Tribunal will certainly recall that the defendant Schulz has testified to the fact that his Einsatzkommando was located in Berdtschev. The location in itself gives the probative value of the document. If Einsatzkommando 5 was located in Berdtschev, and in Berdtschev anti-Jewish actions occurred, it is certainly of probative value to show what kind these actions were. As to the time, I want to state that the report covers a period from the 15th to the 31st of August 1941, a time in which Schulz certainly was commander of Einsatzkommando 5.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Durchholz, the fact that prosecution counsel says that a document is directed against a certain defendant does not of itself establish that it proves anything against the defendant. That is merely what he claims. Now, if, in the body of the document, you fail to see any connection with the defendant and it is clear it has no connection with the defendant, the Tribunal, of course, will also see that it has nothing to do with the defendant. So, don't be disturbed by his mere statement that it is directed against the defendant. Of course it is up to you to study the document and then if you see that it is an attack against your man, you reply to it.
COURT II CASE IX If it is not directed against him, in your argument you can show that the document in no way touches your particular client.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Your Honor, then I would like to reserve the right to hear the defendant Schulz with respect to this document and call him into the witness stand for that purpose.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh no, no. We can't do that. We cannot call the defendants back to answer everything, each particular document. Do you see Schulz's name mentioned in the document.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you see his particular kommando listed?
DR. DURCHHOLZ: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Then as far us you are concerned it has nothing to do with Schulz and you make that argument in your summation.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. HOCHWALD: On page 14 of Document Book I, Your Honors find Document NO-4999, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 202. This document is an affidavit of Karl Hennicke, dated 4 September 1947. I beg Your Honors pardon, on the copy which is in Your Honors' document books, a very important line, the last line on page 14, is unreadable. I therefore will have better copies landed to the Tribunal presently. Unfortunately, just the line which is most important for the presentation of the prosecution is unreadable in the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't see that this is much of an improvement.
MR. HOCHWALD: It is at least readable, Your Honor. The other one is completely illegible. I want we read one sentence into the record. The sentence starts on page 14 of the document book, but Your Honors look better to page 1 of the document I had distributed to you, and reads: "During the execution at Kiew, I noticed the following members of Einsatzgruppe C and of its subordinate kommandos respectively: Dr. Rasch, Dr. Hoffmann, Paul Blobel, and Callsen. Some more officers were present, but I cannot recall their names." In the same affidavit, Hennicke states that sonder Commando 4-B was first commanded by Sturmbannfuehrer Hermann and later by Obersturmbannfuehrer Fritz Braune, COURT II CASE IX This Fritz Braune is not identical with the defendant Braune in the dock.
Because Fritz Braune arrived at the Einsatzgruppe only after Hermann's release, sonder Commando 4-B remained without a commander for two or three weeks. During this period, the kommando was headed by its senior officer, the defendant Blobel. The defendant Fendler, I am sorry. On page 16 of the document book -
DR. DURCHHOLZ: I am representing Dr. Fritz, who represents the defendant Fendler, Your Honor. I was asked on behalf of Dr. Fritz to object to this document. I cannot give any reason but I just want to object in order to get it into the record. Dr. Fritz will give you sufficient reason.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the record will show that.
MR. HOCHWAID: On page 16 of the document book, Your Honors, it is Document NO-5174, offered as Prosecution Exhibit 203. This is Report 26, dated 23 October 1942. This document is offered as corrobotative proof that at that time the defendant Bieberstein was commander of Einsatzkommando 6 and that this kommando was located then in Rostov. Document NO-5155, Prosecution Exhibit 204. It is Report No. 12, dated 17 July 1942. The report shows that in the district around Schazk three hundred forty Jews and Communists and in Slatopol fourteen male and female Jews were shot.
DR. FICHT (Counsel for the Defendant Bieberstein): Your Honor, I should only like to express the request that the prosecution tell us where these areas are supposed to be located. I am directing my inquiry with respect to the present document and the two following documents, so that I can formulate my later objections accordingly.
MR. HOCHWALD: Your Honor, I am not in a position to state right now where these places are, but I do think it can be easily ascertained from a map, and testimony from my part on this point does not seem to be required.
DR. FICHT: Your Honor, then at least would you ask the prosecution to tell us what the connection of these documents is with the defendant Bieberstein.
MR. HOCHWALD: The Tribunal will certainly recall that the defendant Bieberstein has testified here that there were no Jews shot by his kommando, that he didn't find any Jews.