PRESIDENT: An opportunity will be afforded you to present that document, allowing the defense also opportunity to object to it, if they so desire.
DR. KOESSL: Koessl for Schubert. I would like you to instruct the prosecution to state why they introduced the Exhibit Number 27, NOKW 1573against the defendant Schubert. Schubert never deeded having known that Jews were killed. In my opinion there is no reason to submit this document against Schubert. I don't know which statements by Schubert the prosecution is trying to refute by submitting these documents.
MR. WALTON: Your Honor, that is a matter of argument. If the Tribunal desires me to reply to that, I am prepared to do so.
PRESIDENT: Well, if Schubert has not denied knowing that executions took place, and this merely indicates that he does know that executions took place, the most you can say about it is that it is cumulative.
MR. Walton : Your Honor, Schubert was a member of the staff of Einsatzgruppe D. Every document which does not specifically name a commando or a personality is certainly of some proof, regardless of however slight, as against Einsatzgruppe D as a whole, it is certainly proof against the staff who are directing the destinies of Einsatzgruppe D. Therefore, to offer a document against Einsatzgruppe D as a whole where no commando or no personality is mentioned certainly tends toward proof as against the headquarters staff and those who were the commanding officers of the headquarters staff, and those who had knowledge of these reports.
PRESIDENT: Dr. Koessl, you see that this is a theory advanced by the prosecution. It is an argument to which you have the right to reply, and the document is before us for whatever probative value it has and whatever light it might shed on this contested point.
DR. KOESSL: Yes. I merely wanted to point out that apparently the prosecution has no reason to refute any statement by Schubert it does not even try to refute any statement by him. That is why I do not see why the prosecution, when submitting this document in the rebuttal, mentioned the defendant Schubert in particular.
MR. WALTON: I suggest that Dr. Koessl wait with what patience he has at his command. I finished the Schubert brief last night. Today it is being typed, and tomorrow I am sure that it will be in the hands of the Translation Section, and that contains my entire argument as to the guilt of the defendant Schubert.
PRESIDENT: To which you will have the right to reply, Dr. Koessl.
DR. KOESSL: Thank you.
DR. LEHNERT: Dr. Lehnert for Seibert. Your Honor, first of all, regarding the first document, NOKW 1573, Exhibit 227, I would like to raise the same objections which my colleague Koessl has raised against the first three documents contained in this document book, I would like to object, too, and I ask that these be not admitted for the following reasons: These three documents are not rebuttal documents. The meaning of a rebuttal document consists of the fact that the rebuttal statements of the defendants are to be refuted. The purpose for which these documents were submitted here is, however, nothing except to prove the statements by the defendants, but that is not the nature and the purpose of rebuttal. In detail, I would like to mention the following concerning these documents. The Document NOKW 1573, inasfar as it was submitted against Seibert, is irrelevant. It has no relationship to the defendant Seibert. Concerning Document NOKW 5111, Exhibit 193, the prosecutor argumented that Seibert was deputy commanding officer of the Einsatzgruppe. In vain have I looked for such a passage. It merely says that Seibert was the permanent deputy of the group staff. Concerning Document No. 5273, Exhibit 184, which was submitted only concerning Count 4, I object to the following: The affiant merely gave his opinion. No facts are mentioned as to how the affiant obtained that opinion. The affidavit, therefore, contains no facts. Therefore, I consider this statement as irrelevant and ask that this objection be sustained by the Tribunal.
MR. WALTON: Nothing further to add from the prosecution.
PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I only want to reoffer Document No. 3251 which is in Document Book V C as Prosecution Exhibit 207. I have furnished Dr. Riediger with the German copy of the letter in question and I have also received now the complete photostat, so if Dr. Riediger wants to offer his objections now, it would be possible.
DR. RIEDIGER: Concerning the submission of this document as such, I have no objection. Your Honor, since this document again concerns the question of time, of dates,-I beg your pardon if I have to do this during rebuttal - I would like to refer to the witness mentioned this morning. The Defense Center told me that it is impossible to get a witness from Berlin sooner than within 10 days since the passage through the Russian zone has to be approved by the Russians, and that takes 10 days. I have already requested an affidavit from the witness Mendler. It has not been received yet. I merely received a letter in reply to my request in which he confirms that in January and February 1942 he treated Haensch, but since the Tribunal has emphasized that they wanted to find the real truth, I would like to move that this witness, on the suggestion of the Tribunal, be interrogated in Berlin by an American officer from the Tribunal. That way it would be possible to get this testimony in the shortest time. A journey to Berlin by me is technically no longer possible because permission for this, owing to the fact that the Russians have to give the permission, will take two weeks; but time is very important to the defendant Haensch about whom the witness is to be questioned. I beg your pardon for mentioning this here, but it is so urgent, considering the time, that we should try to make it possible that this witness be heard.
PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, you have heard Dr. Riediger's request.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I would very much like to agree with Dr. Riediger on the fact that the witness may be heard by a commission, however, the Tribunal will understand it is an extremely important question and the prosecution in this special case cannot waive the right to cross-examine the witness. I certainly do not want to make any difficulties, and I would like as much as I could to aid Dr. Riediger in getting this thing straightened out, however, it is my opinion that with the proof offered by Dr. Riediger, the time can be given. Dr. Riediger had the witness Schreyer here. The witness Schreyer submitted certain evidence. He submitted certain evidence which was in the hands of the witness Schreyer as to the fact that the defendant Haensch was in February 1942 in Berlin. We have submitted, with the permission of the Tribunal and in accordance with defense counsel, all those exhibits to a German research.
PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Hochwald, we needn't go into the history now. Would there be any possibility of having this witness here, say, in a week's time. We might be willing to sit specially, say, for a period, for a day or an hour or whatever time is required next week, if this witness could be had here in a week. Ten days would be too long, but if we could be assured, say, a week from today--Dr. Riediger, will you take up with the Defense Center the possibility of this witness being brought here, say, in a matter of 6 or 7 days?
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, the Defense Center informed me that I have tried everything in order to speed this up. They said it was so difficult because the Russians have to give permission and in order to obtain that permission it takes a certain period of time.
PRESIDENT: Well, I will tell you what you do. You prepare immediately a request in writing to the Tribunal and bring it to me before we reconvene this afternoon and then I will contact the Defense Center and see if there is any possibility of expediting the departure of that witness and accelerating the arrival here in Nuernberg, just that I will have a request from you in writing.
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, the application by me for this witness has been handed in some time ago and I think it has been handed to the prosecution as well, and I think -
PRESIDENT: Well, I don't want this to be the usual formal application, but a letter written to the Tribunal indicating the great need and the fact that the trial is about to terminate, and that the request should be expedited.
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, I shall hand in the application then before the Tribunal resumes its session. Thank you very much.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, in order to insure that the defendant has every possibility, the prosecution is ready to offer a suggestion. If the defense counsel will telephone Berlin and speak to the witness, we will accept the stipulation on his part as to what the witness would testify to were he brought to Nuernberg.
PRESIDENT: Well, if you are willing to stipulate to that, then a statement from the witness would be sufficient.
MR. FERENCZ: Or a statement from the witness-we do not, of course, admit the truth of the statements, but we do admit the stipulation that that is what the witness would testify to if he were brought to Nuernberg.
PRESIDENT: Well, if you are willing to stipulate that, then is a more matter of going to the witness' home and getting the statement which certainly could be arranged by your representative in Berlin.
MR. FERENCZ: I don't know where the witness is, Your Honor, if the witness is in the Russian Zone, there may be difficulties for as, too, but if he can be reached, I don't want the prosecution to have the burden of going out to find a defense witness and information for them. We are ready to help them, but not to do their work for them.
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, the witness is in the American Zone in Berlin. To carry out the examination there should not present any difficulties.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, our staff in Berlin is very limited and overworked.
I am sure that between now and the closing of this trial the defense counsel could go to Berlin and obtain the affidavit and return, and I am willing personally to offer him any assistance in expediting his travel orders.
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, I can't go to Berlin either within the 10 days, it takes that long to get travel orders, and I have no means of doing it.
PRESIDENT: If you sent off a letter today, how soon could you, get a reply in the normal course of events?
DR. RIEDIGER: Main to Berlin takes from 5 to 14 days. Sometimes I have received letters one way in 5 days, that is, to and fro it will take between 10 and 30 days to get a letter there and back. It is completely unreliable. Already two weeks ago I have requested the affidavit, but I haven't got it yet.
PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald had stated that he didn't want to waive cross examination, and that is the reason we had indicated the procedure which we had, but-
MR. HOCHWALD: Mr. Ferencz has waived it.
PRESIDENT: Well, since I made my original proposition now, Mr. Ferencz has made his, and I think we can resolve it this way. Dr. Riediger, if you will make a request to the Tribunal in writing indicating just what it is you desire this witness to testify to, then we will see to it that this is transmitted to Berlin and that the witness will have any opportunity to reply to that question. Certainly in some way or other we can get that answer to your question. That doesn't seem like too much or a problem to us, so you do that. You make a request to the Tribunal in writing, specifying specifically what question you want to have answered, just as if you had the witness here. Put that question, and we will got an answer to that question for you.
DR. RIEDIGER: Thank you.
PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor, I would like to ask for Dr. Mayor that the defendant Braune be excused from attendance in court this afternoon, and I would like you to arrange that he be brought to Room 57.
PRESIDENT: The defendant Braune will be excused from attendance in court this afternoon and will be taken to Room 57 in accordance with the usual procedure.
DR. SCHWARZ: Dr. Schwarz for Jost. Your Honor, I ask that the defendant Jost be also excused this afternoon in order to continue preparing his defense.
PRESIDENT: The defendant Jost?
DR. SCHWARZ: Yes.
PRESIDENT: The defendant Jost will also be excused from attendance in court this afternoon and will also be taken to Room 57. Mr. Ferencz, may I ask a question, please. Will the presentation of documents in rebuttal be completed at such an hour that some appreciable time will yet be left in the afternoon session?
Mr. FERENCZ: Yes. The presentation of rebuttal should be concluded within a half hour.
PRESIDENT: Then defense counsel that have not yet presented all their document books will be reedy to proceed. Let us find out right now, if we may, who is ready to proceed this afternoon, after Mr. Ferencz concludes. Well, of course, we always have Dr. Linck ready and I want to congratulate you that apparently everything is OK with you.
DR. ULMER: Your Honor, I am able to present my Document Book II this afternoon.
PRESIDENT: Very well. Then you will be ready to follow Mr. Ferencz. Dr. Linck, will you be ready, please?
DR. LINCK: Your Honor, the battle about which you spoke yesterday, Your Honor, has been delayed until 1315 and at such time--at 1315 I have to be present once more, but about 20 or 30 minutes later I will be able to come here in order to present my documents.
PRESIDENT: Very well, and we hope that you do not come in on your shield.
DR. LINCK: I think I am convinced of that, too.
PRESIDENT: Very well, will anybody else be ready? Will you please let other defense counsel know, those of you who see them, that we will be available this afternoon for the receipt of other documents not yet presented. Dr. Gick should be informed that Document Book I for Strauch is ready, so that he could come in and present that.
The Tribunal will now be in recess until 2 o' clock.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours.)
(The hearing began at 1415 hours, 21 January 1948.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. HOFFMANN for Noske: Your Honor, I would like to make a brief statement, for the better understanding of the affidavit of Hausmann which the Prosecution has offered as Exhibit 188 and against which I reserved all objection because the affiant is dead. Your Honor, I have been an attorney for ten years and I don't very frequently have formed so complete an understanding for the interest of my client as I have before this Court. Perhaps that has been my fault formerly or perhaps it was the fault of the period of time, but since I am convinced that this Tribunal has full understanding for it I consider it personally as not correct, for a formal reason, to demand anything which would not be serve the finding of the truth. Therefore, I withdraw my formal objection not to admit this affidavit because the affiant can no longer be taken into cross examination. Of course, I reserve the right as far as anything is to be said factually concerning this affidavit to interpret this affidavit in my final plea and to give it that interpretation which I can make of this affidavit, in contrast to that of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Well that right, of course, is always reserved to you, Dr. Hoffmann. We don't want you to feel that you are in any way compelled to allow this affidavit to be considered. Mr. Walton has submitted his legal argument as to why he believes that, in accordance with all the authorities, it is good evidence. We were prepared to receive any argument which you cared to submit to the contrary and we don't want you to feel that you are in any way being persuaded to abandon any legal position which you may have at one time charished.
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, in order to avoid this impression from the beginning I made the statement about what I personally think of this matter even though otherwise I would have kept it to myself.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. STUBENVOLL (For Ohlendorf): Your Honor, this morning an objection was reserved for Dr. Gawlik against a document of the prosecution. Dr. Gawlik was to raise this objection as representative for Dr. Aschenauer. As Dr. Aschenauer's assistant I myself want to raise this objection. I object to the document in Document Book 5D, document #5821 which was submitted by the Prosecution. This is an affidavit of Rudolf Diels. The defense considers this affidavit irrelevant for the present case. During the war, that is since 1941, Diels was an employee in a private industry. He has no experience concerning the conditions of command in the Einsatzgruppen and even less so about the conditions of the defendants Ohlendorf, Braune, etc. Originally Diels was chief of the Gestaop in Prussia after Hitler took over and was releived from this position by Himmler. Then he became a Government President. On the basis of his good connects to Goering he got a job in private industry after he left this Government job. His example for the application of paragraph 47 - military Penal Code he mentions of the officer who refused to obey an order happened within the Army end was given by a military superior.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, now, Doctor, you are proceeding to argue the law on the matter and that is not what we have before us. Rudolf Diels declares that he knows of an episode where a military person was ordered to execute 500 Jews in Poland and that the officer ordered to do this failed to execute the order and the most that happened to him was that he was considered a coward. Now, that's all this affiant means to us. We are not bound by what he says with regard to rule 47. He is not interpreting the law for us. He is testifying to a special objective fact of which he has knowledge according to his statement.
DR. STUBENVOLL; Yes, but the affiant makes statements which may admit judging conditions in the Einsatzgruppen.
THE PRESIDENT: Well that's what he says but whether we are going to pay any attention to that is for the Tribunal.
DR. STUBENVOLL: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: None of these documents will be accepted just because they are presented. They all have to be weighed on balances of reasonability, law and effect, and justice.
DR. STUBENVOLL: Yes, but in case the document should be accepted I would like to ask the Tribunal to accept an affidavit or the testimony by a witness and this is the one from Karl Wolf, SS-Lieutenant General, who is still here. This is to bring proof-
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, Doctor. We will save a great deal of time by you merely making the request and we will rule on it and the ruling will be in the affirmative. You can obtain this affidavit and you can submit it.
DR. STUBENVOLL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. KOESSL for Ott and Schubert: Your Honor, I likewise raise an objection against the submission of this document but for another reason. The Count Faber-Gastell who is mentioned here was at the time of the alleged disobedience a cavalry officer. It is completely clear that a cavalry officer could refuse to carry out police measures just as well as an infantry officer could refuse to carry out an artillery mission. For this reason I don't consider this document as relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: This incident did or did not happen. If it did not happen the whole statement is a lie. If it did happen then we must determine whether it would have any effect on the interpretation of rule 47. That's all there is to it.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honors, the documents we are about to offer in Document Book V-B concern some of the defendants who were members of Einsatzgruppe B. The first document we offer is Document No. USSR-56, found on page 1 of the document book and offered as Prosecution Exhibit 234. This document is an official report of the Extraordinary State Commission showing certain atrocities committed by the Germans in Smolensk and it is followed by a list of the immediate perpetrators whom the Commissioner regarded as responsible for the many mass tortures and murders shown in the reports. The first name listed by them as responsible for these crimes is major General Naumann.
The next document we offer is USSR Exhibit 48. This is Prosecution Exhibit 235. This is smother official German report, showing that in the vicinity of Smolensk one hundred thirty-five thousand people were killed during the German occupation. The defendant Naumann testified that he was unable to estimate the number killed during his time of command in Smolensk. This document was referred to at that time as giving the Tribunal some indication of the activities that were taking place.
The next document offered is NO-5771, as Prosecution Exhibit 236. In the opening statement for the defendant Naumann, remarks were made that while he was a police official in Holland he had treated the Dutch citizens very well and was very kind be them. What we offer here by way of rebuttal is the official report of the Chief Police Officer of the Hague concerning the defendant Erich Naumann and this report shows that he played an important part in the murder of Dutch citizens during the German occupation. This is the SS personnel record of the defendant von Six and includes in it the letter from Himmler showing the defendant's promotion to Colonel four outstanding service in the Einsatz. In includes another letter showing his assignment as commander of the Security Police and the SD in the East and his dates of service in the Security police Einsatz in the East as 22 June 1941 to 28 August 1941.
The Tribunal will recall that the defendant testified that he had nothing to do with the Einsatz and that he left on the 20th of August. This document was put to him to refresh his memory during cross examination and is now offered as rebuttal for the statements he made on his direct examination. This is a document which was offered and received in evidence by the International Military Tribunal. It is a captured German document and it is part of the files of the German Foreign Office. It gives a summary of a speech made by Ambassador Six. The important parts are found on page 47 of the document book. The Tribunal will notice that this summary states that the defendant Six discussed the physical elimination of eastern Jewry and urged that the Jewish question should be solved not only for Germany but also internationally. On page 47 of our document book, toward the bottom of the page, there is a further parenthetical note in this report which says that the details of the state of the execution measures in the various countries would be kept secret and would not be entered in these minutes. The Tribunal may recall that he, the defendant, stated that he opposed the anti-Jewish measures. This document is offered as a direct contradiction of the testimony he gave on the stand.
Our next document is L-185, offered as Prosecution Exhibit 239. This document was also received in evidence by the International Military Tribunal and is a table of organization of the RsHA as of 1 January 1941. The defendant testified that while he was Chief of Amt 7 of the RsHA he did not have any special section dealing with Free Masonry or Jewry. The table of organization will show that he did have such sections and the people who were in charge of those sections.
Our next document is L-219, offered as Prosecution Exhibit 240. This again is a table of organization of the RsHA as of 1 October 1943 and the Tribunal will notice that Amt 7, which was headed by the Defendant Six, still has a section concerned with Judaism, political churches, and other opposing groups.
This is a letter which was given to us by the witness Veronika Vetter, who came here for the purpose of cross examination concerning an affidavit she had made for the defendant Six. She testified that she was certain that she saw Professor Six in Smolensk at the time she received this letter. The contents of the letter are not important. The significant parts of it however are the dates and the heading. This is found on page 137 of our document book and the Tribunal will notice that it is dated 31 August 1941 and the heading is "Vorkommando Moscow of the Einsatzgruppe B, of the Security Police and the SD." The defendant testified that he was not in Smolensk at that time, that the Vorkommando Moscow was not a part of Einsatzgruppe B, and that the Vorkommando Moscow had nothing to do with the Security Police and the SD. This letter, given to us by a defense witness, is offered as direct contradiction of those statements by the defendant. hibit 242. This is an interrogation of the defendant Klingelhoefer, in which he stated among other things that he had urged Noack to shoot only the old and sick people. That is found on the top of page 144. On cross examination, the defendant specifically denied that and requested that the interrogation be introduced. Your Honor, with the exception of a few which were mentioned previously.
DR. MAYER (for Klingelhoefer): Your Honor,in view of the submission of this document, NO-5846, I have only this objection: namely, that it is not complete. And I ask that instructions be given to the prosecution to bring in the complete interrogation of the defendant. I understood it that way too when the prosecution promised the introduction during the cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: What about that, Mr. Ferencz?
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, as far as I know, that is the complete interrogation. We certainly have no intention of introducing a partial translation. This is the only interrogation I have in my possession and when I offered it I offered it with the firm belief that it is complete. If Defense Counsel has any knowledge that it is not complete, I will be very glad to join with him in making such corrections as he may suggest.
DR. MAYER: The defendant Klingelhoefer has testified on the witness stand, that he was interrogated not only on the 1st but also on the 2nd of July, on which the affidavit was made out which is the basis for this, Thus, this is only one part of the interrogation by Mr. Wartenberg.
MR. FERENCZ: As I understand the defense Counsel's reply, Your Honor, it is that there was another interrogation, at another time. But this interrogation then is complete. I do not think we are required to put in every interrogation we have. Personally, I do not know about the other interrogation. Offhand, I can't see any objection to giving it to the defendant if he wants it, but I certainly object to the suggestion that we have only offered part of an interrogation or the insistence that we offer another interrogation that we do not wish to submit.
THE PRESIDENT: It would appear that you have introduced what you said you would introduce -- the interrogation of the defendant. So that completes that transaction. Now, if Dr. Mayer desires that some other document be presented, the existence of which he is aware of, and will locate that document, then he can present it himself.
DR. MAYER: Your Honor, it isn't possible for me to introduce it myself because the interrogation is in the hands of the prosecution. This interrogation was submitted here in connection with the affidavit of the defendant, which Mr. Wartenberg took down, and the basis for this affidavit was the entire interrogation.
THE PRESIDENT: When you say the entire interrogation, you mean that there was more than one interrogation. Is that what you mean?
DR. MAYER: No, it is not more than one. It is one interrogation which took two days to be completed. In other words, it went on into the 2nd of July but it is one interrogation. There was one night in between, and it bears the date of the 2nd July. The interrogation which was submitted here was siggned, neither by Mr. Wartenberg, nor by the defendant Klingelhoefer. Therefore I conclude that the signatures are to be found at the conclusion of the complete interrogation.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, these are the stenographer's notes taken during the interrogation. Naturally they are not signed, inasmuch as they are prepared by the stenographer for the information of the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Ferencz, it is the observation of the Tribunal that you have not only been fair but you have been very generous in connection with the requests made by defense counsel. Would you please look to see that if by chance there still is another part of this one interrogation, which apparently went over two days, - it may be this represents one day alone, - and if there is another part which has not been introduced, will you kindly see that Dr. layer has the opportunity to look at it and to present it if he so desires?
MR. FERENCZ: Yes, your Honor.
DR. MAYER: Thank you, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You are welcome.
DR. LEHNERT: Dr. Lehnert, attorney for Naumann. 48 and USSR-56, which have been submitted by the prosecution as Exhibits 235 and 234. The representative of the prosecution has claimed that these documents repudiate the testimony of the defendant Naumann about the figure of those executed in Smolensk. First of all nothing can be seen what connection exists between the incidents in these documents and between Naumann. First of all I want to point out that from the abovementioned documents it cannot even be seen whether these dead people who were found in the mass graves were actually executed, and it is also not proved whether they were executed by units of Einsatzgruppe B. Furthermore, I would like to point out chat in these reports the time of death is stated to be between the middle of 1941 to the fall of 1943. Naumann was chief of Einsatzgruppe B only curing part of this time. In the document USSR-48 no persons are mentioned at all. In the document USSR-56 a while number of people are mentioned without establishing any definite connection between the various people and the incidents.
With the exception of Neumann the other persons mentioned there are completely unknown. Presumably they did not even belong to units of the Einsatzgruppe. Exhibit 236, I would also like to object to it because the conduct of Naumann in Holland is not a substance of the indictment and because the various testimonies included in the police report do not show that they were sworn to.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, with regard to this last objection made by defense counsel, perhaps we should like to hear something on it. We have permitted the introduction of much testimony, affidavits on the attitude and actions of the defendants in areas other than that in which they operated, insofar as the charges in the indictment are concerned. Those are documents which tend to demonstrate the character of the defendant, and we are inclined to say at this juncture that we regard them as relevant, but whether the prosecution would be permitted to introduce a document as to an act done by a defendant elsewhere in the nature of a crime to help establish that he was of a criminal tendency we are not prepared to admit.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, this document is not offered to convict the defendant Naumann of the murders he committed in Holland. However, in the opening statement for the defendant his own defense counsel pointed out that in Holland the defendant Naumann had been a very fine gentleman and had treated all the Dutch citizens with great generosity. He introduced that first. We had no intention to introduce anything concerning Holland. It is offered solely for the purpose of refuting that character information or testimony offered by the defendant himself.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, at the very most this report on activities in Holland would be regarded only as a contradiction of any testimony introduced on behalf of the defendant Naumann, that his attitude in Holland was entirely correct, in the nature of impeaching what after all is more or less collateral, but it will have no bearing on what actually happened in Russia.
We make that statement now because when we dispose of the objections en masse we might not particularly refer to this document. Very well.
DR. VOELKEL: Voelkel for the defendant Six.
As Document No. NO-4767 the prosecution has submitted a number of documents which are contained in the SS-files of the defendant Six. The representative of the prosecution has mentioned a number of documents which already have been a subject of the cross-examination. Furthermore, there is a document among them of the SS-Operational Office of the 7th of April, 1942, Page 3 of the German document book, in which it is stated that Six as Commander of the Security Police and SD in the East has been assigned in the East as such. I repeat SS-Main Operational Office, 7th of April, 1942. There it is stated that Six was employed in the East as Commander of the Security Police and SD. Now, during the presentation of the documents the prosecution did not expressly mention this document, but I see in the presentation of this document that the prosecution brings up a new fact according to which Six is alleged to have been the commander of the Security Police and SD in the East. The course of the case up to this point has shown that such an activity was not carried out by Six in the east. Therefore, I object only to this part of the document, and I would welcome it if the prosecution would make some clarifying statement whether it will draw any conclusions from this document.
MR. FERENCZ: The conclusions to be drawn from this document, your Honor, are solely the prerogative of the Tribunal. was assigned to the Security Police and the SD in the last. It is something which he specifically denied in his direct examination, and it is offered as a direct rebuttal of what he testified to.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you not get that?
DR. VOELKEL: Evidently the interpreter didn't catch it because it was too quick. Therefore, parts of his statement were not interpreted.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, please repeat it, Dr. Ferencz, because it is rather important.
MR. FERENCZ: I stated that the conclusions to be drawn from this document are a matter for the Tribunal, and that we offer the document to show that the defendant was in fact with the Security Police and the SD in the East and not merely, as he stated, a professor collecting archives.
DR. VOELKEL: My objection against this document is made from another point of view. That Six was a representative of the RSHA in the East was not contested. My objection is directed against the expression " Commander of the Security Police and the SD in the East". This designation is a special agency designation, which Six never had in the East, and, therefore, it brings up a new fact in the rebuttal, and I object against this new introduction.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it is not a new fact when it attacks what you submitted.