These documents are purported to show that at the time when Bieberstein was in command, or shortly before he was in command, the general extermination program of the Jews was still in force, in 1942 as it was in 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
MR. HOCHWALD: I then offer again from page 24 of the document book Document NO-5654, as Prosecution Exhibit 205. This document contains correspondence between the Master of the Field Police Jakob and Lieut. Gen. Guerner. This correspondence is dated 5 May and 10 June 1942. It refers to the cleaning up and killing of Jews in the area of Komenetz-Podolsk. Exhibit 206, is another letter from the same Jakob to General Guerner. This letter states that three or four actions every week were carried outk sometimes against Gypsies, sometimes against Jews and partisans, and so on. These actions took place under the cooperation of the SD Post. In one instance fifty persons were killed.
DR. FICHT (Counsel for Bieberstein): Your Honor, after all these documents have been presented against Bieberstein, may I make my objections now?
THE PRESIDENT: I think the better practice would be to wait until a whole document book is presented. Then each counsel who feels his client has been adversely affected or who feels that he has reason to object may step to the podium and announce his objection.
MR. HOCHWALD: On page 27, Your Honors, is Document NO-3251, offered as Prosecution Exhibit 207 -
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, I beg your pardon if I am now already pointint out something to you with respect to that document. According to the index, Weinmann, as of the 13th of January 1942, is to have been assigned to the front as commander of Einsatzgruppe C. From the copy of the document which I received, this does not become apparent. Either there is a typographical error in translation or the document is entirely without value.
Therefore, I should like to ask you to request counsel for the prosecution to speak on this subject.
MR. HOCHWALD: I only have before me the English copy. In the English copy there is certainly a sentence to that effect. I would like to draw the Tribunal's attention to it. It says: "Dr. Weinmann has been on the Security Police assignment since 13 January 1942." This is a letter of 21 November 1942.
I am sorry. I will have to reoffer the document. I have been just informed that just this letter was not photostated. I am very sorry. I have seen the original. I apologize to Dr. Riediger. I do think that his objection is perfectly justified. I will have to reoffer the document then, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. HOCHWALD: I would, However, respectfully request that Exhibit No-207 might be reserved for Document NO-3251. 5700, Prosecution Exhibit 208. This is a police registry card of the defense witness Gertrud Schreyer and her husband Emil Schreyer. The Tribunal will recall that the witness testified that she was not living together with her husband. This registry card proves that both are registered by the German Police under the same address. this is an affidavit of the same witness, Gertrud Schreyer, in which she admits that some of her books and particularly the appointment pads No. 3 and 4, were allegedly destroyed by the Russians. In this connection, I refer to the examination of the witness by the Tribunal, where the witness stated that all the books are at the disposal of the Tribunal and did not mention one instance that one of her books is missing. This is a copy of the general directives of the Reich Commissioner for the Strengthening of German Folkdom. These directives state that five hundred and fifty thousand Jews, Poles in high position, and members of the Polish intelligentia are to be deported from Danzig and Posen.
I want to refer to a typographical error in the descriptive index, Your Honors. On line 4, the last word of line 4 and the first word of line 5, "Jewish intelligentia", should be crossed out. It should read: "Five hundred and fifty thousand Jews, the leading Poles, and members of the Polish intelligentia." Exhibit 211. These are minutes of a conference held in Berlin on 30 January 1940. In this conference Heydrich stated that the evacuation of eighty-seven thousand Poles and Jews had already been carried out in order to provided space for the Baltic Germans who were to be resettled. Further, forty thousand Jews and Poles would have to be deported in order to make space for the Baltic Germans. Furthermore, four to five thousand Poles and Jews who had been driven from their homes had already been collected in camps in order to make space for these Baltic Germans.
offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 212. This is an affidavit of Dr. Heinrich, President of the Nurnberg Court of Appeals. I want to point out a typographical error in the affidavit. In the English copy it appears that Dr. Heinrich was appointed President of the Court of Appeals in 1935. The correct date is 1945, Your Honors. The affidavit states that the emergency decrees of 15 October 1938 and 8 July 1939 and twenty-five decrees for the execution of these emergency decrees are no legal basis for the draft into the SD and into the SS.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, shall we recess now?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
Dr. FICHT: Ficht for Bieberstein.
Your Honor, first of all I am talking about the Exhibit No. 203, No-5174. That is the last document book. May I point out here that this is not a rebuttal document? This fact was mentioned by us in fact, and we never contested it. Therefore, this document has nothing to do with rebuttal. I, therefore, formally object to it. I have nothing to say on the matter itself. very short excerpt from the Report No. 12, and I would like to have the entire report submitted. This is mainly because localities are mentioned here which are of importance. Mentioned are Szatsk and Slatopol. These are two localities which are more than five hundred kilometers to the west of Rostov where Einsatzkommando 6 was active during the time of Bieberstein. Also the evidence has not shown at all that EK 6 was ever in these localities. May I show to the Tribunal briefly about where these localities are? They are about here on the map (indicating) and Rostov is here. I shall mention another locality later on. Also concerning this document-
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Ficht, if you would like to have the entire document submitted, why don't you then see that it is submitted, the entire report.
MR. HORLICH-HOCHWALD: It goes without saying, your Honor, that if you are putting in one part of a report the whole report is in evidence, and the original of the report respectively the absolutely complete photostatic copy, is at the disposal of the defense counsel for defendant Bieberstein any time he chooses to look at it in Room 216.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. FICHT: Your Honor, may I conclude my objections? The second objection is based on the date. The report is dated 17 July 1942 and it was made out in Berlin. This fact shows that the events mentioned in it must have occurred much earlier, that is during a time when Herr Bieberstein was not with Einsatzkommando 6. On these two points, localities five hundred kilometers to the west and the date which is much earlier, I, therefore, consider that this report has no probative value, and that is why I object to it.
The next number is 205. This is a private correspondence between somebody in the field police and a general, because the two seem to have known each other privately previously. The locality here is Kamonitz-Podolsk. Kamonitz-Podolsk is approximately at the border between Poland, Rumania and Russia. This is about 1,000 kilometers to the West. Since no evidence exists that Einsatzkommando 6 was ever in that locality, and since also the dates of these letters are 5 May '42 and 21 June '42, therefore from a point of time these affidavits have no probative valye. May I emphasize that the master of police who wrote these letters in his last letter of 21 June '42 calls his own letter some elementary talk, and this should emphasize the probative value of these documents.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, as far as I recall we have not stated in our presentation that it is the contention of the Prosecution that Einsatzkommando 6 was in the places mentioned in the different documents. However, it is of importance to show that the extermination program of the Jews in the West in the area of Einsatzgruppe C, even if it was 500 or 1,000 kilometers West of Rostov, was still going on at a time when Bieberstein was a member of this Einsatzgruppe, or shortly before he came to this Einsatzgruppe as commander of Einsatzkommando 6. That is the relevance of the document.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The Tribunal will pass upon all these objections at the end.
DR. FRITZ (for the defendant Fendler): Your Honor, this morning the Prosecution submitted a document in Document Book V-C, Document No-4999. This is an affidavit by Karl Hennicke. My colleague, Dr. Durchholz, when deputizing for me already objected to this document, and I would like to ask for permission to give my reasons for this objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
DR. FRITZ: On page 3 of the original of this affidavit Hennicke states the following, and I quote under figure 4 from the second sentence: "Commando 4-B was first led by Sturmbannfuehrer Hermann and later by Obersturmbannfuehrer Fritz Braune. Since Fritz Braune arrived with the Einsatzgruppe only after Hermann had been relieved, the Commando 4-B for about two to three weeks did not have a chief. During this interim period the Commando was led by the senior officer, Lothar Fendler." The Prosecution is claiming this, and this is a completely new assertion that Fendler, as Hermann's successor, independently commanded the unit for several weeks. The Prosecution did not claim that until now; rather, they claimed thus far that Fendler was deputy of Hermann when the latter was absent for a brief period of time from the Commando. That is why this document is not suitable to impeach the credibility of the witness and of the affiant, of whom I have brought affidavits. The defendant Fendler has had no opportunity until now to defend himself against this new contention. I therefore ask that this be not admitted, or, at least, that this point be not admitted. In case the Tribunal should admit the document, however, I would like to ask that the defendant Fendler be given sufficient opportunity to defend himself against this new contention. The defendant Fendler assured me, and I believe him, that this assertion was completely untrue. Therefore, I would have to bring new witnesses to prove that this assertion is wrong, or I would have to examine the defendant Fendler in the witness stand again.
DR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, if I understand the objection by defense counsel for the defendant Fendler correctly, he objects against this document by saying that the Prosecution wants to prove a new point in the case which was not raised until now. The Tribunal will certainly recall, and there is a document in Document Book 3-C, the affidavit of the defendant Fendler himself, where he stated that he was never the official deputy of the commander of the Einsatzkommando, but that he replaced him in cases of his absence. The Tribunal will further recall that the defendant Fendler has offered proof, and has himself denied on the witness stand, the fact that he substituted Hermann for more than several hours.
Therefore, an affidavit stating something different, in my opinion, is perfectly admissible and constitutes, certainly, valid rebuttal evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Fritz, Fendler has in effect already denied this. So that now you have the statement of Fendler, all his testimony, contradicting this. It becomes a question of the probative value, the respective probative value of these two types of evidence. This affidavit denies Fendler's statement. Fendler attacks the affidavit. It is a matter of argument in the final summation to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal determines which of the two is more worthy of credence. Or, it may be possible that Fendler's testimony can be accepted in such a way as even to agree with this and yet not necessarily establish that he was guilty of crime. At any rate, you have those two stories.
DR. FRITZ: Yes, Your Honor. May I say something else. I have likewise submitted an affidavit from this witness Karl Hennicke which was admitted by the Trib unal. The contents of this affidavit contradicts the affidavit submitted now. The witness Hennicke is in the court prison in Nuernberg. I would like to ask for the right, at least, Your Honor, to be able to obtain another affidavit from the witness or to call him into the witness stand for cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I tell you what you do, Dr. Fritz. Tomorrow afternoon, after we have moved along with the presentation of the remaining documents to be submitted by the defense, you bring this matter up again and then we will see what should be done.
DR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, in the descriptive index of Document Book V-C, there is a regrettable error as to the document against which Dr. Fritz just now has objected. That is Document 4999, Prosecutio n Exhibit 202. The affiant Hennicke was not an officer of Sonderkommando 4-A, as it is stated in the descriptive index.
He was, as the affidavit shows, an officer of Einsatzgruppe C. I respectfully request the Tribunal to make this change.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. RATZ (for defendant Radetzky): Your Honor, I object against the submission of the Document NO-4059, Exhibit 210, page 35 of the English document book. This document concerns the clearing of formerly Polish territory from which the Polish and Jewish population was evacuated, so that the Ethnic Germans coming from the Baltic countries could be settled there. In the indictment and in the opening speech by the Prosecution nothing is said about a count of that kind against Radetzky. Apart from that it is very doubtful whether this constitutes a criminal act by the defendant Radetzky, and whether this document can prove any criminal act by Radetzky because Radetzky was not at all connected with the Reich commissioner for the strengthening of Germanism.
THE PRESIDENT: This is a matter for argument at the final summation, Dr. Ratz.
DR. RATZ: For the same reasons I have just explained I object to the next document, NO-5322, Exhibit 211, page 69 of the German and page 37 of the English document book. I only wish to add here that the defendant Radetzky did not participate in the discussion of 30 January 1940 in the RSHA, the Reich Security Main Office. The participants in this discussion are mentioned in this document.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the Tribunal will certainly recall that the Defendant Radetsky had testified at great length about his activities with this repatriation committee of Baltic Germans. For this reason in order to rebutt his testimony, these two documents are certainly relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will pass on these objections at the end of the presentation.
DR. RATZ: Your Honor, finally I object against the Document NO5814, Exhibit 212, page 75 of the German Document Book. This is an affidavit by Oberlandesgerichtspraesident Dr. Heinrich. Dr. Heinrich gives his legal opinion based on studying law, but he cannot comment on how this law was applied in practice. He has no practical experience in handling this law and in applying this law, and theory and practice in wartime very often varied from those in peacetime. Dr. Heinrich is not an expert for administrative practices. In particular, he has no knowledge about the practical application of the War Emergency statutes in the Warthegau. It is not a matter of admissibility or lack of admissibility or a war emergency draft, but all that is being discussed, is whether Radetzky was actually under the War Emergency Statutes. The affidavit says nothing about that and therefore, in my opinion....
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Ratz, this is not the time to present the argument. Now, Mr. Hochwald has submitted this affidavit; and if you think that it doesn't prove anything against your client, you can show that in your summation. We are not hearing arguments now.
DR. FICHT (Counsel for the Defendant Bieberstein): Your Honor, concerning the last matter, I apply that Oberlandesgerichtspraesident Dr. Heinrich be called here for cross examination so that it can be determined whether he has practical knowledge about the application of these regulations.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I do think that the request on the part of the defense counsel for Bieberstein in this case is not relevant.
As far as I do remember, it is not the defense of the Defendant Bieberstein in that he was drafted into the SD on the basis of this decree. Only this decree and the legal aspects of this decree are subject of this affidavit. The Prosecution fails to see what the Defendant Bieberstein has to do with this document. rebuttal evidence as good as I could, as to names. I have, if I am not mistaken, stated that the defendants Radetsky and Graf have brought forward the defense of having been drafted on the basis of emergency decrees, and both of those defendants have introduced translations of the decrees as evidence. I am not aware of the fact that this affidavit is offered in order to prove something in the case of the defendant Bieberstein.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Ficht, if you wish to submit any other affidavit or statement to contradict this, you may do so; but we see no necessity of calling Dr. Heinrich as a witness.
DR. FICHT: Now, I withdraw the request since the Prosecution has said that this document will not be used against Bieberstein, but according to the previous explanation of the Prosecution, I could not assume that.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. FICHT: Your Honor, in reply to the statement made by the Prosecution concerning the documents offered as Exhibit Number 204, 205, and 206 which he has offered, I would like to add here that these documents occurred before the time when Bieberstein was in EK-6 and was about 500-1000 kilometers distant from the place where he was. May I say here that during that time civilian administration was already used there and Einsatzkommandos were no longer in charge.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if the dates of the document show that, then, of course, there is nothing for you to worry about. It is a matter of argumen tation in any event.
MR. HOCHWALD: May I proceed with Document Book 6, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Please.
MR. HOCHWALD: Document Book 6 contains only translations of certain of the emergency decrees in connection with the execution of the Four Year Plan, and I will just offer these documents without commenting on them. These documents are offered in evidence only in order to give the Tribunal a basis to judge the affidavit of Dr. Heinrich, about which I have just offered as Prosecution Exhibit 212. on page 2 of the Document Book as Prosecution Exhibit 214; NO-5858 on page 3 of the Document Book as Prosecution Exhibit 215; and Document NO-5859 on page 5 of the Document Book as Prosecution Exhibit 216; on page 7 of the Document book, Document NO-5860 as Prosecution Exhibit 217; and Document NO-5861 which is on page 9 of the Document Book as Prosecution Exhibit 218; finally, Document NG-3678 on page 10 of the Document Book as Prosecution Exhibit 219. I only respectfully request the Tribunal to permit me to re-offer the document which was unfortunately incomplete when I offered it, after the rebuttal of the Prosecution will be over. Mr. Glancy will now proceed and offer Document Book 5-A.
MR. GLANCY: May it please the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Glancy.
MR. GLANCY: May I proceed with the presentation of Document Book 5-A?
THE PRESIDENT: Please.
MR. GLANCY: My remarks, if any, Your Honor, shall be necessarily brief because I consider all my rebuttal evidence as self-explanatory. I offer NO-2262 as Prosecution Exhibit 220. This is a letter signed by the Defendant Strauch. His signature appears on page 15.
I offer Document NO-4317 as Prosecution Exhibit 221. This again is a letter signed by the Defendant Strauch. His signature appears on page 19.
I offer Document NO-5498 as Prosecution Exhibit 222. I respectfully request the Tribunal to ignore and strike page 2 of this affidavit as it was previously offered as against the Defendant Blobel, but as it is outside of the period covered by the indictment, it is inapplicable and inadmissible. However, page 1 refers to the Defendant Strauch and refers to happenings and occurrences in the middle of February 1943, well within the period of the indictment. 223. This is a situation report - rather, two situation reports. It serves to corroborate some of the other documents offered by the Prosecution in re Strauch.
I offer Document NO-5167 as Prosecution Exhibit 224. This also refers to the Defendant Strauch. It refers to activities in partisan warfare, reputedly, and I call the attention of the Tribunal to the number of persons killed for having been suspected of aiding or supporting the guerrillas.
I offer Document NO-5166 as Prosecution Exhibit 225. This also refers to the Defendant Strauch and reported actions against the partisans .
As the prosecution's last exhibit I offer Document No. 5188 as prosecution exhibit 226. On page 39, the last page of the document book, it is reported,."On 9 May 1942 in the town of Minsk 28 members of the White Ruthehian Partisan organization were publicly executed by hanging." There is a distinction made in the third line, however. It states, "On the same day 251 persons", and we will note this "predominantly Partisans and Jews were shot". 9 May 1942 is within the period in which the defendant Jost was commander-in-chief of the security police and SD for Eastland. This concludes my presentation of Document Book VA rather. Mr. Ferencz will be here momentarily to present V B.
PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. GLANCY: Thank you.
MR. WALTON: If it please the Tribunal, in order that time will not be lost, I am ready with Document Book 7 D, if it can be presented in that order.
PRESIDENT: We would be grateful if you would proceed.
DR. WALTON: The prosecution at this time offers Document Book V D, page 1, Document NOKW 1573 as prosecution's exhibit 227. This document is offered in rebuttal as against the contentions of the defendants Ohlendorf, Seibert, Braune, and Schubert, and shows that prior to the execution held just before Christmas 1941 executions were being held continuously during the period 5 to 15 November 1941, and this slaughter was in the midst of an allegedly friendly population. ment 4147, already given the prosecution exhibit Number 188. This is the affidavit of Emil Haussmann, deceased, and relates some of his experiences in Einsatzkommando 12. Attention of the Tribunal is especially called to paragraph 5 of thus document wherein this deceased affiant relates facts concerning the report of 300 to 350 executions by the defendant Nosske's command. Since no reply brief was filed by the defense on prosecution's written motion of 19 December 1947, I assume that the defense has abandoned their objection.
PRESIDENT: Mr. Walton, that is a rather powerful statement, you just uttered, and we wouldn't want to hold the defense to it, with Dr. Hoffmann being absent.
MR. WALTON: It is merely an assumption on my part. I didn't purport to speak for the Tribunal.
PRESIDENT: And I didn't mean that you were. I just wanted to protect, for the record, Dr. Hoffmann's position and it will be called to his attention. That is something that should appear upon the record at this moment, that anyone reading it wouldn't assume that the defense had abandoned their position without a statement from Dr. Hoffmann to that effect.
DR. WALTON: The prosecution next reoffers in Document Book V D, page 4, Document No. 5111, already offered as prosecution's Exhibit 193. This document is the affidavit of the defendant Heinz Schubert, which shows that the defendant Willy Seibert was the assistant commanding officer of Einsatzgruppe D and not deputy for purely staff matters, no more than the defendant Ohlendorf was commanding officer purely of the staff or Otto Schnopfhagen was the physician purely for the staff. ment No. 5273 already in evidence as Prosecution's Exhibit 184.
PRESIDENT: Mr. Walton, why do you reoffer a document of it is already in?
Mr. WALTON: I called that to your attention at the time that the document was offered. There was a paragraph in there which referred to the defendant Willy Seibert as the deputy of Ohlendorf. The Tribunal recognized the fact that parts of affidavits could not be offered and, therefore, specifically requested that this paragraph 4, particularly the first sentence thereof, be reoffered in rebuttal.
PRESIDENT: Very well. Have you given it a new number?
MR. WALTON: Your Honor, that is identically the same number that was given --184--at the time it was offered. Technically, this is a reoffer of two sentences of paragraph 4.
PRESIDENT: Would you then let us have that number again, please.
MR. WALTON: Document 5273, Prosecution Exhibit 184. At the time, Your Honor, that that was offered I thought that the processing of the document, with enough copies, would have been completed before I finished with my cross examination. It was not. I had to have permission of the Tribunal to reoffer it in the rebuttal. The same document number and the same exhibit number is given as was assigned at that time, 193. Could I have some expression from the Tribunal as to Document Number 5273? Does the Tribunal want it reoffered again as to that sentence in paragraph 4?
PRESIDENT: Well, you have already reoffered it.
MR. WALTON: Oh, I mean, given another exhibit number I should have said, as to that paragraph 4.
PRESIDENT: The same number will be retained and--well, the same number will be retained and we will indicate it was reoffered.
MR. WALTON: Very good, Sir. This paragraph 4 shows in what manner this affiant regarded the defendant Willy Seibert. Erwin Lahousen, contained in Document Book V D, page 11, Document No, 2894. T his affidavit is offered as prosecution exhibit 228. It is clearly shown on pages 13 and 14 of the English document book that Russian prisoners of war and even Tartars from the Crimea were arbitrarily executed by the Einsatzgruppe there. The citation is on pages 5 and 6 of the original. code. Since this section, which is found on page 49 of the original is offered in Document Book V D, page 17, it is Document No. 5854, of Prosecution Exhibit 229, in the form of an excerpt from the cited volume. This law shows the responsibility for issuance of and obedience to an illegal order. As this Tribunal has said, murder has been considered a crime by every lawgiver since Moses, but the prosecution cites the even older precedent followed by Moses himself, namely, the defendant Gain adjudged guilty of the murder of his brother Abel and punished therefor. This is supported even by German law that illegal orders, that is, orders to murder did not have to be obeyed by these defendants.
Document No. 5856, Prosecution Exhibit 230. This document is a certified transcript of the interrogation of Dr. Roman Loos, head of the secret field police with a German army group, who gives his opinion based on long military service and his own knowledge of such matters concerning the obligation to obey illegal orders. Particular attention is, therefore, called to pages 20, 21, and 23. This substantiates the cited section of the German military penal code. If Your Honor please, on page 29 of your Document Book V D in the certificate of Mr. Walter H. Rapp, I should like very much for you to delete the word "translation" in the last line, fourth word from the end, and write in the word "transcript" as appears on the photostatic copy of that certificate. ment No. 5821, as Prosecution's Exhibit 231. This document is the affidavit of Rudolf Diels, the former head of the Prussian Gestapo, who testifies that it is possible to disobey illegal orders without serious personal consequences He relates instances wherein he personally disobeyed such orders in his capacity as a Gestapo official.
PRESIDENT: Just a minute, Mr. Walton. Does the affidavit indicate who Rudolf Diels is?
MR. WALTON: No, Your Honor. This witness has given several affidavits here. Probably this was a series of affidavits and in one of which he indicated his official position.
PRESIDENT: Will you please repeat who he was?
MR. WALTON: Yes. Rudolf Diels was during a part of his career the first head of the *russian Gestapo which later became the Gestapo for all of Germany.
PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, in my opinion one has to object to the presentation of this document. The probative value of this affidavit in my opinion, does not exist because this witness could not possibly have known anything about conditions concerning the defendants, and could not testify about it.
That is why I went to object to the admission of this document.
PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Riediger, the affidavit is by no means controlive and decisive. It doesn't mean that because he thinks so that makes it so, but it does offer a piece of evidence on how it was regarded--how this military order was regarded in other instances.
DR. RIEDIGER: The probative value will be discussed again later on, I presume?
PRESIDENT: By all means.
MR. WALTON: It is only offered in substantiation of the fact that people have disobeyed superior orders and gotten away with it. It is rebuttal argument.
PRESIDENT: Yes, Yes.
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, I would like to reserve an objection against this document for Dr. Gawlik, who is not present, and I think he has some objections to it which I do not know yet.
PRESIDENT: Yes. Reservations will be made in behalf of Dr. Gawlik, so that he may present whatever objections he desires to this document when he returns to the court room.
MR. WALTON: The last document in Document Book V D is found on page 32 thereof. It is Document No. 4993, and is Prosecution's Exhibit 232. This document is an affidavit of one Robert Barth, who states that he was a member of Einsatzkommando 10B, and that on occasions and at certain times the defendant Felix Ruehl was deputy to the commanding officer, one, Persterer. the prosecution desires to offer. It is a long manuscript of the speech or lecture prepared by the defendant Otto Ohlendorf, concerning the superiority of the National Socialist form of government over existing forms of governments. I am informed that the processing of this document is an extensive task and it will be completed by the end of the week. I, therefore, ask leave of the Tribunal to offer this document as soon as it is processed, or at such session as the court meets for the purpose of hearing the remaining objections to the defense documents or of handing down its ruling on matters yet pending which is scheduled for decision prior to the verdict and judgment.