DR. VOELKL: The new fact consists in the fact that the concept of commander of the Security Police and the SD is a fixed one. It designates a definite activity as, for example, the Commander of the Security Police and SD actually carried out in Oslo or in Riga or some place else. One can interpret the document to mean that this special office was held by Six, and to this extent it would be the introduction of a new fact by the prosecution against which I object. But if one should merely conclude from this that Six was assigned in the East as a result of an order from the RSHA, then I would not object to this fact, considering the case-in-chief presented so far, and I would then merely object to the expression "Commander".
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the weight to be given all these documents is something which will be determined later, of course, in the final appraisement of all the testimony in the case. The prosecution maintains that Six was doing a certain thing in Russia; Six maintains he was doing something else. That is the issue.
DR. VOELKL: My further objection is directed against Document PS3319. It is the document in which, among other things, the Krummhuebel conference is mentioned, but which includes a large number of other documents which might perhaps show a responsibility of the defendant concerning the Jewish question in Bucharest. The prosecution mentioned those documents only insofar as they concern the Krummhuebel conference. Therefore, my objections will first of all be limited to those parts of the document. The report about Krummhuebel is on pages 15 to 25 in the German text and bears no signature. Only the letter addressed to the various subordinate agencies is signed by Schleier. In the cross-examination the defendant Six has already stated that the excerpt regarding the conference which is not signed would be considered as unauthenticated and, therefore, I repeat this objection against the minutes of the conference. clusions are to be drawn from the fact that the measures of the Foreign Office were to be kept secret as far as they concerned the Jewish question.
As for this point I must say that Six merely was the director of the cultural political office in the Foreign Office.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Counsellor, you are arguing the case, and this is not the time to argue it. You must show that this document is spurious; that it is irrelevant; that it is incompetent, but you may not argue the facts in the document. Now, Professor Six had an opportunity on the witness stand to answer this very document. Now, when you come to argue the case to the Tribunal you go into it further, but this is not the time to argue it.
DR. VOELKL: Your Honor, I will be brief then, and I will just say that those parts of the documen t bring up a new point which make Six responsible for the Jewish questions in the Foreign Office, and to this extent another department, i.e. the Department II of the Foreign Office was competent, and I object against this new point, or rather, I would like to reserve the right to bring a refutation of this new point in the form of another affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that is for you to determine.
DR. VOELKL: Another objection is concerned with the Document L-185. There the table of organization of the Foreign Office is contained and the responsibility of Six is fixed insofar as on the 1st of March 1941 he was supposed to have been responsible for Department 7. Six was at the time with the troops, and in that respect the document is immaterial in reference to the defendant. I have the same objection to the Document L-219. This document contains a table of organizations of the RSHA of the 1st of October 1943, that is to say at the time when Six was already in the Foreign Office and was no longer responsible in the table of organizations as Chief of the Office 7. In this respect the document is irrelevant as far as the defendant Six is concerned. only insofar as here not the original of the statement of the 31st of August 1942 was submitted but merely a certified copy with the signature of a person by the name of Schroeder.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will pass on all these objections simultaneously. You will be ready to present your other document book?
DR. KOESSL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And who will follow, anybody else ready?
(One of the defense counsel raised his hand)
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.
MR. WALTON: And if Your Honor please, just for purpose of the record, the Exhibit No. 233 was skipped. There will be no Exhibit 233.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The Tribunal will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. KOESSL: Dr. Koessl for the defendant Ott. Your Honor, for the defendant Ott I have Document No. 10, which I offer as Exhibit No. 10. This supplement brings evidence of the fact that Ott in the area of Bryansk has brought about that in his area the deportation of forced labor into the Reich was discontinued. I submit this document as evidence as to his attitude towards the civilian population. That concludes my presentation of documents.
DR. VOELKL: Dr. Voelkl for the defendant Six. Your Honor, as I have already explained this morning, I shall now present Document Book No. II. My colleague, Dr. Ulmer, has already submitted yesterday Document Book III for Six. Document Book II contains under Document No. 40 the Exhibit No. 47, which I am herewith offering. It is an affidavit from the former research assistant, Emil Augsburg. He states on 5 October 1947 that on 23 June 1941 he received the order to join Six as an interpreter for Moxcow for the prospective Archive work, and has been in the company of Six from Warsaw until Six' departure on 20 August 1941. He confirms that the assignment of the Commando was the seizure of archives in Moscow and that it was independent of the work of Einsatzgruppe B. He also confirms the journey of Six to Berlin in order to get new instructions with regard to his relations with Nebe; the formation of the Archives Detachment at Minsk on 8 July 1941 under the name of Vorkommando Moscow, after an interview with the Chief of the High Army Command of the 4th Army. The composition of the commando is also covered. According to explicit instructions in the RSHA of Office Chief I, Streckenbach, the Commando was to be formed from men with local knowledge of Moxcow and of interpreters in Einsatzgruppe B. He also talked about the start of the Advance Commando Moscow between 14 July and 16 July to the Garrison of AOK-IV in Tolotschino, and, he also mentioned the conference with the Major Helmdach on the tasks of Advance Kommando Moscow. Then in a series of statements he describes in the affidavit that contact was made with the Division Reich and that agreements were made for this division concerning the further advance with this division until the time that this division continued its advance . Archives and cultural material was seized and secured in Smolensk.
After the arrival of the staff of Einsatzgruppe B in Smolensk, on 6 August 1947 - he perhaps means 1941 - the situation and task of Advance Kommando Moscow didn't change. Then it is mentioned that the executiin of the tasks given by Six became impossible, owing to the complete change in the military situation in the central sector of the Eastern Front and that for a longer period of time, so that Nebe made an offer to Six to carry out another task in the Advance Kommando in the meantime, which consisted in anti-partisan warfare, that Six refused the offer on principle and asked for his recall from the RSHA, the Security Main Office, and that Six left on 20 August 1941. After his departure Nebe took over the Advance Kommando himself for the time being. The witness further testified in his affidavit that while Six was in charge he kept to his functions as Archive Detachment assignment and carried out neither police actions nor did he participate in any. Your Honor, this affidavit belongs to that group of documents which belong to the group "A" mentioned when the previous documents were presented, and, they therefore refer to the activity of Advance Kommando Moscow.
The next document, Six No. 41, which I would like to introduce as Exhibit No. 49, belongs also to the same series of subjects.
ment director, on 18 December 1947. Huppenkothen was together with the defendant in Lublin, and after that went to Berlin. There he reported to the Office I Strechenbach of the Reich Security Main Office, and the latter inquired from him where Six was. He gave the proper reply to this, and as a result therefrom Heydrich recalled Six from the East. He also confirmed the return of the defendant from the east to Berlin, between the 19th and 26th of August, 1941. I also offer the document Six No. 42, as Exhibit No. 50. This is an affidavit by Ilsetraut Plautz, a former secretary of the defendant, given on 10 December 1947. Plautz states that she was the secretary of the defendant in the Reich Security Main Office, and that on 23 August 1941 she returned from her leave, and after that had written lengthy report -- which the defendant made about his activity in the advance kommando. In this report, nothing was contained about execution measures. I would like you to cross out the next mentioned of the affidavits, by Ursula Alander. I intend to bring Miss Alander here tomorrow as a witness.
I now come to the document Six No. 44, which I would like to offer as Exhibit 51. Here an affidavit is given by Dr. Dittel dated 5 December 1947 where it is confirmed that after Professor Six loft the SD and Office VII in March, 1943, Dittel he took over as acting head of Office VII. It is also asserted that Office VII carried out library, archives and press cutting work, according to the manner of academic libraries and archives. It also says that this office carried out scientific research in the manner carried out by acedemic institutes. Dittel also confirms that Office VII did not have a regional organization in Germany, nor did they have one outside of Germany, and that it consisted of 40 to 50 collaborators. This document belongs to the Series B, as far as it concerns the work of the defendant within the SD.
The same applies for the next document, document Six No. 45, which I offer as Exhibit 52. This is an affidavit of the university professor Guenther Franz, of 17 November 1947. Franz states that Office VII, according to its task and owing to its small size and since they did not have a regional organization, was a special body within the RSHA.
Office VII was not an office like the other departments in the Reich Security Main Office, but rather a research institute which comprised, including the clerical help, about 50 people. The object of its research was not the present structure, but they had to deal with the historical roots and their idealogical conceptions, in order to gain an objective conception of history. In order to achieve this aim, commissions for research were given to scientists who did not have to belong to the SS or the Party. The results of the research were discussed in annual conferences. The results were not kept secret, but were published in books. Then Professor Franz analyzes some books as to their scientific contents, and states that the German scholars welcomed the work of Office VII, that in the scientific press and professional periodicals, their publications were approved. the year 1943, in which the activities of Office VII are described in a similar manner. Your Honor, this supplement which I have just mentioned, I offer as the next document, Six, No. 46, which I would like to offer as Exhibit No. 53. I would like to point out that there is a close relation between the two documents. In the excerpt of the research report by Franz, this historical periodical, "The World in History," is referred to and there the work of the Reich Security Main Office is also mentioned. These four books are reveiwed, and it is explained that they had the task to introduce the scientific research work on the Masonic question. The publications of Office VII constituted free scientific research, connected with degree and doctors' theses. Omitting speculations and presumptions, those works limit themselves exclusively to the historical archives. The following works are mentioned here; a book by Hans Schick. It deals with the older Rosicrucians. It describes the origin of the older Rosicrucians and for the first time by bringing in the entire literature about Rosicrucians emphasizes the three genuine Rosicrucian books, which are the basis for the entire Rosicrucian theory.
Then a work by Adolf Rossberg, concerning "Free Masonry and Politics in the Age of the French Revolution," and the history of the Order of Illuminati, and this deals with the most peculiar picture of the Masonic organization in the 18th century. The third work is written by Heinz Guertler. It deals with German Freemasonry in the service of Napoleon's politics, and in particular with the work and the history of Free Masonry in the kingdom of Westphalia. The last work is by Hans Riegelmann, it lists the European dynasties in thier relations with the European dynasties and Freemasonry and gives all members of the former ruling houses who were Freemasons, and who influenced the policy of their countries.
I also offer Document No. 47 as Exhibit 54. This is an affidavit of the university lecturer Hans Schick of 5 December 1947. This document also belongs to the series of questions D, that is, concerning the work of the defendant in the SD. Schick confirms in his affidavit that Office VII of the Reich Security Main Office had only research tasks. This consisted of looking after archives of historical value, and also confirms the establishment of a research institute similar to the university, and the carrying out of scientific research. Schick proves these aims with actual publications, which prove the scholarly character, and which are connected with Document Six No. 46, which I have just submitted.
I now offer as Document Six No. 48 Exhibit No. 55. This is an affidavit from the university professor Eschmann of 3 November 1947. It confirms that Six as a student was not anti-Jewish. At the university in Berlin, he stood up for colleagues who had Jewish relations. It also gives the establishment of the Berlin faculty of international relations according to the traditions of the Heidelberg sociology, and Six's positive attitude concerning the question of bringing about an understanding with France. This positive attitude is proved by the fact among other things that the defendant intervened in favor of the French resistance leader Boutelleon. The document 48 which was just submitted and the following one, No. 49, belong to the series of questions D. They concern the scientific work of the defendant.
Document No. 49, which I offer as Exhibit 56, constitutes an affidavit by Professor Jaeschke from the University in Munster. It was made out on 5 December 1947. In it he said that Professor Six, in his office as dean, felt responsible to the world of learning, that even in the questions of safeguarding and protecting endangered cultural treasures he never broke the rules of international law. He proves this with an example which refers to a library at the university, I have to say to some scientific library in Italy.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
DR. VOELKL: (Continued): I also offer document #50 as Exhibit #57. This was made by Hans Otto Meissner a former Counsel of the Foreign Office. It was made out 17 December 1947. In this affidavit Meissner states that he as a representative of the German Embassy in Milano took part in the conferences of the Foreign Office at Krummhuebel in April 1944. He also states that in the lecture of Dr. Six, statements about the extermination of Jewry or of about a solution of the Jewry question according to the Krummhuebel records were never made.
The last document which I offer is Document #51. This is Exhibit #53. This was given by Erika Boese a former photographic reporter of the Foreign Office. It was made out 10 December 1947. Erika Boese confirms, as a participant of the meeting at Krummhuebel in April 1944, that Dr. Six in his lecture at no point asked for the elimination of Eastern Jewry nor did he make any hints in that direction. This document #51 and the previous one #50 belongs to the series of questions C and therefore concern the work of the defendant in the Foreign Office. Document Book II is concerned. Your Honor, according to the announcement made yesterday it will now be possible that Fraulein Ursula Alander be heard as a witness here tomorrow morning and I ask for the permission of the Tribunal that at the beginning of tomorror morning's session I may be permitted to introduce the witness to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be done.
MR. WALTON: If your Honors please, it looks like the opportunity for Dr. Linck and I think our session will not present itself this afternoon. In the event that something unforeseen would happen I will be in my office if you will have the Marshal call me.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Mr. Walton, that will be done.
DR. KRAUSE for Haensch: Your Honor, I would now like to introduce Document Book III. From this book I submit and offer on Court No. II, Case No. IX.
page 1 as exhibit #25 the document #22. This is the affidavit by Lotte Geissler of 14 December 1947. Frau Geissler confirms here the statements by the defendant in the witness stand that the defendant in Dresden lived in the house of a Jewish woman Frau Markus and was on friendly terms with her. Frau Geissler unfortunately did not state the period of time, however. It was from January 1934 until February 1935. I asked for an additional statement and would like to reserve the right to submit that yet.
I also offer on page 2 as exhibit #26 the document #23. This is a certificate by the dentist Dr. H. D. Maennel in Berlin-Zehlendorf of 30 December 1947, stating that the defendant was being treated by him in January and February 1942. I would like to ask to admit this certificate until Dr. Maennel will be able to come here as a witness according to my application.
I then offer on page 3 as exhibit 27 document #24. This is an affidavit by Hans Steinwede of 22 December 1947. THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. Which document book are you presenting?
DR. KRAUSE: Document Book III for Haensch.
THE PRESIDENT: It doesn't seem as if we have that.
DR. KRAUSE: Your Honor, I could submit one single copy in English here which is at my disposal.
THE PRESIDENT: A mimeographed copy?
DR. KRAUSE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
DR. KRAUSE: I also submit and offer on page 3 as exhibit #27 the document #24. This is an affidavit of Hans Steinwede of 22 December 1947. Steinwede was house electrician in the Reich Security Main Office. As a member of the SD in the year 1943 he made disapproving remarks about Hitler and Goering. For that reason disciplinary action was started against him. The defendant at the time, being in charge of disciplinary matters, intervened so that Court No. II, Case No. IX.
Steinwede was only given a small term of arrest. Steinwede himself explains and I quote briefly: "At the time, thanks to the advice of some comrades, I turned to the then Lord Justice of the RSHA, the then Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Walter Haensch. I was told in so many words by my comrades that if anyone can help you and will help you then it is Haensch." Only one thing is incorrect in the statement, namely that Steinwede describes the defendant as Lord Justice. The defendant was only a referent which this man, being a simple man, could not realize. The clarification of this point makes me introduce the following document. I offer it on page 4 as exhibit 28. It has the document #25. It is an affidavit by the co-defendant Erwin Schulz of 12 January 1948. It shows that the disciplinary superior entitled to make decisions and the Lord Justice of the RSHA for members of the RSHA was at all times only the chief of the RSHA.
I also submit on page 5 and 6 as Exhibit #29 the document #26. This is an affidavit by Dr. Werner Best former plenipotentiary of the Reich in Denmark of 26 December 1947. It completes his affidavit which has already been introduced dated 31 October 1947. It deals mainly with the constant attempts by the defendant that the politically delicate border territory of Northern Schleswig be protected against suppression on the part of police and Wehrmacht. Dr. Best gives a case here where the dynamiting of a farm is concerned. The defendant insisted at the time that the dynamiting was not to be effected, Owing to this he got into most serious differences with the local police authorities.
COURT II CASE IX offer as Exhibit 30-A, this is the Document No. 27 and on page 16, which I offer as Exhibit 30-B, this is Document No. 28. These two documents belong together. They are two letters by a woman from Denmark, who worked in the office of the Plenipotentiary. The first letter contains an extensive description of the work of the defendant in Denmark. The document is so important that I would like to draw the special attention of the Tribunal to it. I ask that it may be admitted it although the statements are not sworn to. The defense has tried to get a new statement in the form of an affidavit. However, we were unable to do so. The reasons can be seen in the second letter. In this second letter, the woman concerned regrets, for reasons of her personal security, to be unable to repeat her statement because recently exonerating statements in favor of a German National would result in prosecution by the Danish Government. about a document by the prosecution which was mentioned in the afternoon session of the 3rd of December, and which was introduced as Exhibit No. 187. This is a statement by Mr. Wartenburg about the interrogation of the defendant on the 8th of July 1947. I object to the utilization of this document for three reasons: first, because it was introduced at such a late date that Mr. Wartenburg could not be cross-examined about this any more; secondly, because it is not signed by the defendant himself; and thirdly, because the defendant, as Mr. Wartenburg in his own statement, on page 410 of the transcript, said that the signature on the affidavit which was made on the basis of this transcript was refused by the defendant. With regard to the Mr. Wartenburg's statement I may point out that according to his explanation the defendant seriously reproached him about this that he, Mr. Wartenburg, had ever confused matters. introduced by the prosecution this morning, No. 3251-A, which has the COURT II CASE IX Exhibit No. 207.
These are personnel files concerning Dr. Erwin Weinmann--or, to be quite correct, they are supposed to be such files. Obviously there is a confusion and refers to his brother Dr. Erich Weinmann.
MR. GLANCY: If it please the Tribunal, I personally am not acquainted with this because I was not in court at the time. However, I assume that the good Doctor had ample opportunity to object at the proper time--that as at the end of the prosecution's introduction of the listed documents. I would request that further argument on this be deferred until I can personally inform myself as to the matter.
DR. KRAUSE: I beg your pardon. I thought that this document was already introduced this morning, and the refore now is the right time for my objection.
MR. GLANCY: I believe the practice has been laid down by the Court, Your Honor, that at the end of the presentation of the document books the defense will avail themselves of the opportunity of objecting, at that time. I am under a slight handicap now of not being well enough versed to answer.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, suppose defense counsel finishes. We will allow defense counsel to finish his statement as to why he objects to this document and then tomorrow morning, Mr. Glancy, you can reply to it.
MR. GLANCY: Thank you, Sir.
DR. KRAUSE: This document, which I just mentioned, refers in my opinion, not to Dr. Erwin Weinmann but to his brother Dr. Erich Weinmann, who also was a member of the SS and the SD. Dr. Erwin Weinmann was never Lord Mayor of Tuebingen. He never was civil servant within the state administration. He was never under the Reich Ministry of the Interior and, at least during that time, he did not belong to the circle of persons which was under the SS Personnel Main Office.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, Mr. Glancy, you will reply to this in the morning?
MR. GLANCY: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And we will continue, tomorrow morning then, with the further presentation of defense document books and the hearing of the one witness scheduled. The Tribunal will not be in recess until tomorrow morning at 0930.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 22 January 1946, at 0930 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
DR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, before Dr, Ulmer starts with his witness I would like to make a reply to the objection which was raised by Dr. Krause against document Prosecution Exhibit 187 and, I presume it is 207. Document Prosecution Exhibit 187 was admitted in evidence on 3 December of the last year. An objection raised by Dr, Krause now was certainly not raised in time. Moreover as far as I understand he objected against this document by argumenting that Mr. Wartenberg said something else on the witness stand than transpires from the document. This is an argument to be used in a closing brief or in a summation but it does not make the interrogation transcript of the defendant Haensch in itself inadmissible. The same, to a higher extent, is even true about Prosecution Exhibit 207. It is argumented by Dr. Krause that this document does not give the information the Prosecution states it does. This is entirely argumentative argument. The document is a captured document and in its form entirely admissible. It is purported to be a part of the personal file of the man Erwin Weinmann and, therefore, it is certainly admissible in evidence here. Moreover I want to point out, and that I think settles this matter, that Dr. Riediger had, when I submitted the document, declared before the Tribunal that he had no objection against the offering of the document. It is our very strong conviction that it is impossible that he make such a statement to the Tribunal in the morning and that in the afternoon his deputy goes up and objects against the very same document. That is all I have to say to this objection, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: We will dispose -- You want to say something?
DR. KRAUSE: Your Honor, concerning the question whether I agree with Dr. Riediger concerning this objection I would first have to discuss the matter with Dr. Riediger. I cannot imagine that we should have spoken here. To the opposite effect. I would therefore like to make the concerning statement at a later point.
DR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I personally think that this is superfluous. The record will show whether Dr. Riediger made this statement or not. The record is official. If the record contains this announcement of Dr. Riediger in the record I think it is perfectly clear. If this announcement of Dr. Riediger is not in the record I am willing to apologize to Dr. Krause but I was standing here next to Dr. Riediger when Dr. Riediger made this statement and I hope the Tribunal can take my word for it.
DR. KRAUSE: Your Honor, I only would like to say: the fact that Dr. Erwin Weinmann, who is mentioned in document 3251 A was not Mayor of Tuebingen. He was not under the Reich Ministry of Interior, etc. This fact is not eliminated because of the statements made by the Prosecution. I would like to have this examined: even if the defense would not want to retain its objections, there is still a possibility that a confusion took place here between the two men. I would, therefore, like to ask that it be suggested to the Prosecution to consider this.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, we have pointed out in answer to the objection of defense counsel that he, of course, is at liberty to attack the document in every way he see fit to bring proof that this document is an error, to bring proof that this document does not pertain to the person we say it pertains to, but that makes the document in itself not inadmissible - and that is the question before the Tribunal; the document itself would not be inadmissible if not in the form which makes it admissible or if it is clear from the document itself that it has nothing to do with the case., None of these two things are stated by defense counsel. If he wants to argue that this document does not prove what we think that it proves this is question of argument and the Tribunal will decide this question in its judgment.
But the document itself is entirely admissible and that is the only thing here at issue.
THE PRESIDENT: Why doesn't Dr. Riediger indicate whether he objects to the document or not.
DR. KRAUSE: Your Honor, I do not want to make a statement after Dr. Riediger is supposed to have said that he did not want to raise an objection.
DR. HOCHWALD: "I have no objection".He did not save the right of objecting."I have no objection against the admission of the document."
THE PRESIDENT: Let's put it this way. There is no reason why we should have any conflict of recollection between counsel. When Dr. Riediger appears he can be asked if he does or does not object and we will dispose of it at that time.
DR. HOCHWALD: I only want to say as to the document itself - it is a captured document and in its form, and in its content, it is perfectly admissible. I do not want to add anything, any more, to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that all counsel know that the general policy followed by the Tribunal is to admit documents which have probative value or appear to have probative value. The weight of each document will depend upon its nature and all the circumstances surrounding it. But, at any rate we will wait to hear from Dr. Riediger so we can be absolutely certain s to the position ofdefense on the document.
DR. KRAUSE: Yes.
as follows: BY JUDGE DIXON: after me. will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath)
JUDGE DIXON: you may be seated. BY DR. ULMER for Six.
Your Honor, may I start to examine this witness?
THE PRESIDENT: Please, do. BY DR. ULMER:
Q. Witness, please tell the Tribunal your personal data?
A. My name is Ursula Alander, born 2 August 1918 in Munster, Westphalia, residing in Wyk-Foehr, Nord Friesland Sandwall 74.
Q. Did you have official relations with the defendant Six? a student of the foreign scientific faculty. Ever since then I have known Professor Six. Since the summer of 1940 I was a scientific assistant with the foreign scientific faculty.
Q. Witness, please talk a little slower into the microphone so that the translation can keep up. When did you start on that position?
A. On 1 June 1940.
Q. Did Dr. Six himself employ you?
A. Yes.
Q. When was this?
A. On the previous day, 31 of May 1940, on the 1st of June Professor Six was transferred into the Army.
Q. Who was the professor of the faculty for whom you had to work immediately?
A. Professor Six himself. During hisabsence his chief assistant deputized for him.
Q. How long was Dr. Six absent from the university?
A. From 1 June 1940 until the end of August 1941.
Q. Do you know where he was?
A. Professor Six was at first near Berlin with the Army. Later on, in Holland for training, finally he was in Russia.
Q. Did he never pay any brief visits to the institute?
A. Yes he did. He had short leaves occassionally.
Q. And when did he finally return to the institute?
A. I saw him for the first time again on 21 or 22 August 1941.
Q. How do you know this so exactly?
A. Because afterwards I took my leave on Saturday 23 August 1941. I had been granted leave for the last week of August.
Q. Do you have anything to support your memory for these exact dates?
A. I have a calendar of 1941 which I borrowed. It confirms these dates. Also in the house where my mother and I spent my leave together there was a gentleman whom I asked to confirm the date by wire. My mother also recalls this particular date.
Q. How did it occur to you to remember dates that way?
A. Because I was called to the Tribunal by wire and I was asked to give the date of the return of Professor Six and prove it if possible.
Q. When did you return from your leave in august 1941?