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.
Q You still don't grasp what I am asking you, witness. That all happened in 1941, didn't it? I don't know when you ware asked by someone to recall when it was that you saw Six in 1941 -- you were asked to recollect something which happened six years previously. That is right isn't it? for the first time or else I might have had to think about it a little longer. But when in November, when I happened to visit Professor Pfeffer and he told me, among other things, that Professor Six was not being believed concerning this date which was being debated, I remembered my leave on that occasion and I remembered immediately that it was the last week of August and that the following week started with the first of September. Therefore it was not difficult to draw the conclusion according to dates.
Q Then what did you do to confirm your recollection? on leave as what date I must have seen him, if I saw him two or three days previously; that was a very simple deduction. you had no document to support your memory, that you left on August 25 on your vacation? How could you recall, after six years lapse, that it was on that Monday? How could you confirm that it was that Monday? It could have been another Monday -- it could have been the following Monday or the preceding Monday. We'd like to know how you anchored your recollection to the precise date.
A The fact that I took leave in August is obvious. It is the month when one takes holidays. Also during that year there was still the order of the terms. The term had taken very long since it was the second one of the year. Therefore our leave started very late in August because we could not leave with the other students at the beginning of the holidays between the terns.
This was at the beginning of August. I had to remain another two weeks at least. I remember that. The summer holiday means a great deal to a student and it wasn't so easy for us that we had to wait some time yet. from the person at whose home you spent this vacation?
A Yes. Frau Alander and daughter Ursula, during the last week of August 1941, spent their holidays in my house in Berlin. Erich Schwanz.
Q Did you take your vacation right in Berlin?
A Yes, in the center of the city I had a small student's room. My mother came to Berlin and had stayed with these acquaintances for some weeks already. When I also got my leave I also moved in there.
Q Well then, you weten't very far from the Institute during the time of your vacation.
A No, of course not. But if one has such a short leave one does not want to have it interrupted and wants to dispose of one's own time.
Q Well, it wouldn't have been a very difficult thing for you to go over to the Institute even while you were on leave to speak to Professor Six, would it?
A Of course it would not have been difficult, but one can't just go over like that because the Institute was at the University and one had to go to the city and this took at least half a day, and if one only has a few days of leave one does not like to sacrifice half a day. the last week in August.
Q It doesn't specify any date, does it -- any date of the month? prosecution -from the 25th of August until the 1st of September.
house any time between the 25th and the 30th. difference to me whether I am there at the beginning of the week or already for the week-end. My mother had been there for some weeks and was waiting for me to take a few days leave as well.
Q And when did you return to the Institute?
Q How long was your vacation?
Q You were only allowed one week vacation?
AAt that time, yes. Already at Easter I had had two weeks leave and in the winter I intended to study in Copenhagen. For this reason I had to leave for some time and, of course, could not ask that in August I should also be given a long leave.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, any other question, Mr. Hochwald. Mr. Hochwald, do you want to proceed. I think Mr. Hochwald should proceed, and Dr. Ulmer may finish up.
MR. HOCHWALD: Yes, Your Honor. BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q You moved from Berlin to Copenhagen, did you?
A No. In November I left for Copenhagen for two semesters. I was able to study there due to the academized exchange system; all European and non-European countries could take part in this.
Q Which day was that?
Q How do you know that? know the dates precisely. Tell the Tribunal how do you so precisely recollect this date? and pleasure for Copenhagen.
Q Can you tell the Tribunal what day of the week it was?
A I can not say that; it was a week day, as to which one I don't know any more. correct?
A Yes, it was a matter of course. There was no choice for me.
Q On what day was that?
Q The date, please?
A It was in my opinion the 2nd of April. I don't think that I make a very great mistake here; there might be a slight error.
Q And do you remember the dates so very well? special meaning for me.
Q Can you tell me how long you stayed in Copenhagen?
A I returned at the beginning of August 1942 to Germany. I do not know on what date I crossed the border, but I do know the exact date since you want check up on my memory, that on 12th of August I started to work again in the Institute.
MR. HOCHWALD: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other questions?
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, we have in the meantime obtained yesterday's transcript, and I only want to point out that I think that I was correct. The transcript shows that Dr. Riediger expressly, as already said concerning the submission -
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, are you through with this witness now?
MR. HOCHWALD: I am sorry.
THE PRESIDENT: You are finishing up?
MR. HOCHWALD: I had the feeling that the Tribunal had excused the witness, I beg your pardon.
THE PRESIDENT: You are now excused and you may leave, witness.
(witness excused)
MR. HOCHWALD: May I proceed, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: When you get tangled up with justice, it is always hard to get away.
MR. HOCHWALD: May I proceed, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. HOCHWALD: Dr. Fiediger is now here and will certainly confirm that he yesterday told the Tribunal that he had no objection against the Prosecution's Exhibit No. 207.
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, it has been clarified according to the content of this document that the said Erwin Weinmann, which is the name here, is called the Mayor of the City of Tuebbingen; the Prosecution just referred to the Mayor Weinmann. Now, as it was Erwin Weinmann was not mayor but his brother was, so that, therefore, it is particularly doubtful, that this information which was given here refers to the mayor, that is, the brother - -
THE PRESIDENT: Well, counsel, do you or do you not object to this document.
DR. RIEDIGER: Until it has been found out which Weinmann is concerned here, I have to object to the probative value of this document, and say that this document can not be considered evidence until it has been clarified which one of the Weinmanns is concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's hear from Mr. Hochwald.
MR. HOCHWALD: If I understand the objection of Dr. Riediger correctly, he didn't give any reason for the admissibility of the document as such. If Dr. Riediger argues that the Weinmann mentioned in this document is not the then Obersturmbannfuehrer, or whatever his rank was, who went with the defendant Haensch to the East, it is for him to prove that, but the document being a captured document, being part of the SS personnel record, of the said Erwin Weinmann, it is certainly admissible in evidence. Moreover, if I repeat, I do hope that Dr. Riediger will be in accord with me, as he said before this Tribunal that he has no objection concerning the submission of this document. I think that it is certainly clear that it is impossible the fact that the document has been accepted in evidence over the declaration of counsel, that he does not object against the document, and that he afterwards - -
THE PRESIDENT: Well, does the record show he said that?
MR. HOCHWALD: Yes, I have it before me, and I do hope that Dr. Riediger will .....
THE PRESIDENT: We will say this, Mr. Hochwald: even if Dr. Riediger said five hundred times yesterday that he had no objection to the document, but today can advance a valid argument as to why it should not be admitted, then it will not be admitted, so that we are not concerned with what he said yesterday but as to what the legal position is today. Now, Dr. Riediger, you have heard Mr. Hochwald point out that this is a captured document which comes into Court before the Tribunal with all the safeguarding and care which goes with documents.
Now the burden is upon you to show that it is not an authentic document, and until you can in some way attach the authenticity of the document, naturally, it would be accepted as a genuine document. If you want to prove that it was not the mayor, then you will have to adduce some facts to that effect.
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, I would like to reserve the right here to bring other evidence in. I hope that by sending a wire to the Mayor of Tuebbingen, or other inquiry, the matter might be clarified, but in view of the fact that the date is now again emphasized, I would like to ask that the witness Maennle, who was mentioned here yesterday, who is supposed to have treated Haensch in January and February 1942, should be called here and to be examined here. It is the witness who lives in Berlin-Zehlendorf. I have not yet withdrawn h ere the application which was in the Defense Center. Everything has been done to ask him to come here, but as I have said yesterday, this should take about ten days. I believe that the oral examination in Court of the witness here, in particular when he can be cross examined here, should be far more important than the investigation by any commission in Berlin. It is not the fault of the defense if this question was only raised yesterday; an application had been made for the witness for sometime, but the defense only heard about the witness during the last few weeks, so that the defense was not able to apply for the witness to come here.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that matter will be disposed of this morning, and if you will come to my chambers at noontime, we will let you know what steps have been taken with regard to this witness, whether he can actually be brought here, or whether it will be necessary for someone to question him in Berlin, and then we will submit the results here in open court.
DR. RIEDIGER: Thank you, Your Honor .
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. LINCK: Your Honor, I think it will be understood by the Court if I am anxious to go ahead and introduce my documents.
THE PRESIDENT: I would like to know, first, Dr. Linck, if you are permanently free, or only temporarily on parol?
DR. LINCK: No, permanently free, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I want to congratulate you in having escaped.
DR. LINCK: If it pleases the Tribunal, before I present my documents now, I would like to thank Mr. Walton for bringing me in the other day. I should also like Mr. Walton to be informed now so I will be able to be present.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, indeed, we will take up your documents, just as soon as Mr. Walton arrives. In the meantime let's analyze our present situation so that we will know just what more there is to be presented. Dr. Aschenauer, you were not here yesterday when we discussed the schedule. We stated that you should have your summation ready for presentation to the translation section one week from today so that you would be ready to present orally your summation on Monday, February 2nd.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Of course, it will be possible.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the manuscript, of course, would need to be ready one week from today, which would be January 29th or at the very latest the morning of January 30th.
DR. ASCHENAUER: That also will be possible.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't catch the answer?
THE INTERPRETER: He said he would be ready to submit it on 30 January.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Fine. Now who are ready today to present documents? Dr. Linck, of course. Who else?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, I can submit two documents, but one is the result of the rebuttal. I can do that immediately. Of the questionnaire of Dr. Diels' cross examination, I shall still get in translation by today, and I shall hand this in today. May I proceed?
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I would like to state that I can start immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you may after I make this announcement. Now we have to talk about Dr. Aschenauer's presentation. Of course, it follows that other counsel must have their summations ready also, and we will take up the summations in the order in which these defendants sit in the box, so that following Ohlendorf's presentation, there will be Jost, Naumann, Schulz and so on, and each attorney should have his summation ready at least three of four days prior to the day on which he is going to deliver it, so that there will be time for the translation. You may now present your own document you have ready.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, as Mr. Walton is handling the case of Ohlendorf, and Mr. Walton is coming down within a minute or two, possibly the Tribunal might have its recess now.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will take up odds and ends until that time.
DR. ULMER: Your Honor, I was supposed to remind the Tribunal of the following: I shall present our Document Book IV for the defendant Six, which was sent to the mimeographing department today, or would have been sent there, it will take a few days before it is concluded; Your Honor was going to instruct as to the written presentation of this document book which was to be made; I ask, because of the exhibit numbers, Your Honor. Your Honor permitted us that the document may be submitted in writing, before the final summations are started; I would be very grateful if Your Honor would here give me purely technical explanation how we should handle it, concerning the exhibit numb er, whether we should submit to you the document in writing, say, we present the document No. 70, and another exhibit number such and such, and then continuously submit it in writing, as it is submitted here orally.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Ulmer, we can dispose of the remaining business in this way; today we will hear all the presentations which are ready; one day next week, which has not as yet been established we will sit, and this will have nothing to do with the recess, that is to say, the weeks period of recess will still run. We will sit one day to take up everything which may be remaining in the way of documents to be presented, or motions to be made, or perhaps even a straggling witness to be heard. We will decide this afternoon what day that will be. It will probably be the latter part of the week. Everything will need to be presented that day, in the way of documents and witnesses. At the termination of that days' subiness, all testimony in this case will be with the Tribunal, and nothing can be received after that in the way of testimony. With regard to trial briefs, they will be accepted up to and including the last day of the oral presentation of summations, closing statements, not after that day. Is that clear? Very well, then, this afternoon, we will make the announcement as to the date we will sit. Yes, Dr. Ulmer.
DR. ULMER: Just one most question, Your Honor, will we then get a support of the Tribunal that on that supposed term fixed for next week, the translation and mimeographing department would be told to get everything ready for this case.