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?
A. On Monday first of September 1941.
Q. Did Dr. Six remain there constantly in his offical capacity?
A. Yes.
Q. How did it come about that you came to me and told me about your dates in November 1947 when we saw each other for the first time.
A. It was an accidental visit with Professor Pfeffer. I heard about the date which was being debated about which I could give testimony. I therefore offered myself as a witness to Mr. Ulmer and on 26 November 1947 I gave him an affidavit about this.
Q. Did you hear what tasks Dr. Six had in Russia?
A. I heard that Professor Six had to look through file material and archives in Russia. This was talked about in the science department at the University.
Q. Your Honor, these are the questions which I had to ask this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Any of defense counsel desire to examine the witness?
Mr. Hochwald do you have some questions? BY DR. HOCHWALD:
Q. If I may, your Honor. mony here, is that correct?
A. I was prepared for those questions.
Q. Who prepared you for those questions?
A. Herr Ulmer informed me what he was interested in in connection with this trial.
Q. I do not think that you answered my question. I asked you who prepared you for the answers of those questions?
A. It was not necessary that I should be instructed because I was well informed about the incident and I am able to give these replies without difficulty.
Q. My question, witness, was very specific. You told me first that you were prepared for the questions and now I asked you twice who prepared you. I take from your last answer that you revoke your first testimony and say you were not prepared. Will you then tell the Tribunal whether you were prepared -- who prepared you or whether you were not prepared?
A. By preparation I understood the discussion with Mr. Ulmer about the contents of the questions.
Q. And have you some notes before you or did you have some notes before you during the interrogation when you now testified to these questions?
A. I had a copy of my affidavit which confirms my replies.
Q. Just now, when you were testifying?
with me when I discussed the questions with Mr. Ulmer.
Q So I will come back to my first question. You have been testifying here without notes, is that correct? That was the first question I asked you.
A No, I discussed the questions with Mr. Ulmer which would probably be asked today and I had my affidavit from November with no. you. I asked you a very simple question whether you now, when testifying before the Tribunal, had some notes before you to refresh your memory, or whether you were testifying freely. Did you have some notes before you just now when you answered the questions of Dr. Ulmer this morning?
Q Would you be good enough to see these notes?
DR. ULMER: Your Honor, I object to this manner of questioning. I would like to say that the notes contain exactly what I discussed with the witness. I do not know whether the witness has any reasons to have to give them to, the prosecution. If the Tribunal rules that she should hand them ever she will do so, of course.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is not required to surrender her notes unless she desires to do so.
MR. HOCHWALD: If your Honor please, I am not aware that I did ask for anything. I asked her whether she would like to hand me the notes.
Witness: I do not know what the prosecution wants these notes for. If I am asked to hand over the notes I shall do so, but since I do not knew the reasons, the motives, I shall not do it on my own initiative.
MR. HOCHWAID: I do not -
THE PRESIDENT: You may inquire if the notes were made by herself. If they were made by herself-
WITNESS: Please I did not understand.
Mr. HOCHWALD: May I ask the question the Tribunal kindly suggested. Did you write the notes yourself? they were copied again in Dr. Ulmer's office in an orderly manner. BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q In what way did you make changes in these notes? Tribunal. Did you change certain parts of your testimony? in my notes. This purely factual matter of form Mr. Ulmer corrected for me and gave me the same questions more or less, only they were more precise.
Q How long did you know Professor Six? dean for the foreign science faculty at the University.
Q You were a very close collaborator of his? departure to the army. have some documents which prove this date. Did I understand your testimony correctly in this respect?
A I have no documents which prove my first meeting with Dr. Six.
Q I am sorry -- it's my mistake. I beg the Tribunal's pardon. I did not make it clear. I was just speaking about the date of Dr. Six's return to Berlin on 20 August 1942. I am sorry. I am speaking now about his return. You have told the Tribunal that you have some documents which prove this date, is that correct?
return or, that is, the ate when I started my leave which is 21 or 23 August 1941
MR. HOCHWALD: May I respectfully request the Tribunal to ask the witness if the witness will not give it to me -- to surrender these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: The notes she is using?
MR. HOCHWALD No, not the notes she is using. The documents which prove the date of Dr. Six's return to -
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have that document with you, witness? house I spent my leave confirms this leave to me. I also have a calenda of 1941 where I find my recollection confirmed that the last week of August when I took my leave had the dates of the 23rd which was a Saturday and a Monday is the 25th of August, until the 1st of September.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the witness has referred to to those documents and I do think it's perfect right of the prosecution to see these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that you might let him look at those documents.
MR. HOCHWALD: May I have them. I look first at the telegram. Is it true that the telegram says only the last week in August, so that that could have been also a week which started on the 30th of August? can be seen on the calendar. Of course I started my leave already on the previous Saturday -- the previous week-end. That was 23 August. BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q I have before me your calender. I do not see anything on the calender which would refresh my memory if I would be the owner of the calender. Not a word witness, is that correct?
A Yes, I do not own this calender. In 1945 I fled from Berlin and have no papers of my own. O borrowed this calender before I started to leave for Nuernberg. received this telegram, had no document showing that Six returned on 20 August 1942 to Berlin?
A No, I have no documents to prove this. I merely said that this date, of the return of Professor Six, coincided with the date I started my leave and that I only have been able to get some documents to prove when I started my leave. It was impossible; after an escape for weeks and after being interned in Czechoslovakia for three Months, to take any documents or papers along with me.
Q You were a member of the Party, were you not? the BDM, the German Girl's Youth Organization. When I was twenty, an age when one does not remain in this Youth Organization any longer, I was transferred into the Party proper.
Q But you were a member of the Party, were you not?
Q Until 1945?
Q You were, when Germany collapsed, in Czechoslovakia? There was no choice, then, to escape then to the Sudeten area. There the American troops advanced and the Czechoslovakian partisan troops took over the civilian administration.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, how long did you know Professor Six? BY THE PRESIDENT: occured?
A What incidents?
Q When did he leave for Russia?
A I do not know the exact date. I only knew that on 1 June 1940 he was drafted. For a few weeks he remained near Berlin. For some time he was sent to Holland for training and was in Russia for rather a brief period.
Q Well, you met him in January 1940. Then in June 1940 he was drafted.
Q When did you next see him after June 1940? because he came to the Institute repeatedly. I can not recall any particular date. During his time of training in the Netherlands he spent short leaves in the Institute as well.
Q Then when did he leave for a protracted period?
A He never did. We never knew when we should see him again. But he kept coming back as a surprise every now and then and never very long periods elapsed in between.
Q Then when did he leave for Russia?
A I can not give an exact date; but since the Russian campaign only started at the end of June, it is obvious that at the earliest it could have been at the end of June and up to August there were only two months. began? know it, but eventually I did hear that he was sent to Russia in order to look through archives. I don't think that he advanced immediately with the armed forces.
Q When did you first learn that he was in Russia?
Q Did he communicate with you from Russia by letter?
A No, I was a student and assistant. Professor Six had no reason to write to me. that he was in Russia and when he returned from Russia. in Russia was only very brief. Institute? tely from his journey. I know he was only passing through and tried to talk to him to that occasion. Officially he could only be seen later on, but since I intended to start my leave the following week I insisted on seeing him before, in order not to have to interrupt my leave.
Q Was he still in uniform?
A Yes, while passing he was in uniform. After my leave, which was only one week later, when he took over office again, he was in civilian clothes again, but since he had just come back from his journey he was still wearing a uniform. his return from Russia? passing. He did not stay in Berlin but he was greatly interested in his department at the University and since it was close to the station, he always looked in when he passed through Berlin.
Q That isn't what I asked you, witness. I said that you saw him and then one week later you left on your vacation. Did I understand you correctly?
A I started my leave on 25 August -- that was a Monday. That is, I left, of course, already the previous Saturday, 23 August. Two days before, approximately, I talked to Professor Six when he was in transit. A week later I had finished my leave. I returned to the Institute and then, of course, I talked to him again. your leave?
A On 22 or 23 August. It was a Thursday or a Friday. On Saturday I left. him August 21 or August 22. week before I started on my leave. left the Institute?
"before I saw him. That must have been the Friday or Thursday therefore.
Q Now, did he come in just for a very short period? next he would take over his department again. He said that the following week he would go back to the Institute and would discuss our work with us. I told him then that I would like to talk to him immediately because I was going to take my leave the following week. In the afternoon he therefore returned to the Institute between two or four o'clock, I talked to him for some time then. But it was in the afternoon of the same day. during this period, you did not, of your own independent recollection, fix the date, did you? down again. But this note originates from my affidavit which I gave according to my memory.
Q We don't understand each other, witness. When you were first asked to recall, -- whether it was by Dr. Ulmer or anybody else -when you were first asked to recall the date on which you saw Professor Six in 1941, after his return from Russia, you did not, of your own free will, recollect precisely the dry, did you?
A Of course I remembered the exact date. I just made made error just now by saying I talked to him on the 22 or 23. That is a mistake, of course, because I left the house on the 23rd. Therefore it must have been the 21st and 22nd -- that Thursday and Friday. it was 21 or 22 August that you saw Six, when you ware asked to recollect that date just recently. that I left the house on the 23rd, I could immediately conclude that it must have been the 21st or 22nd.