one.
Q What did you treat the patient for in November, 1941?
A Pardon me, I can't tell from memory. (The Exhibit was handed back to the witness). In November, is that right?
Q You opened the tooth?
Q What do you mean by opening a tooth? some gas and after half an hour the patient becomes free of pain.
Q All right, and what did you do in the next item? That is, you say he is free of pain. Did he say that he was free of pain?
A That is a matter of course. That goes without saying. On the 19th of November he got his first filling.
Q All right, now which tooth was that, the first filling?
Q Then the next item, what does it say?
Q Same tooth?
Q I thought you had filled it before?
A Oh, no, that was too early. The patient got three antiseptic temporary fillings. That was between the time of the 19th of November and the 3rd of December. Then according to the file the tooth was all right, it was clean, and on the 14th of December he got the filling in the root of the tooth, and on the 14th of January the treatment was concluded.
Q Always the same tooth?
THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION(Continued) BY DR. RIEDIGER: could you then tell whether you made this treatment at that time on his teeth?
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, I ask that it be permitted that the witness may look at the teeth of the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: He can certainly look at the tooth of the defendant providing he can tell us by looking at the teeth when he treated the teeth. If he has the date on the tooth we will allow him to read that date and inform the Tribunal.
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, but first of all it has to be clarified since the witness testified before that he cannot remember the defendant, but that the defendant was actually treated by the witness. Of course the question of time cannot be determined on examining the teeth, but considering the testimony before, that he personally does not know the defendant, it seems necessary to me.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Riediger, he does not know the defendant, does not remember him, does not recollect him, couldn't recognize him. Now you are submitting to the Tribunal that by looking at a tooth he can tell whether it is his work or not, is that what we understand?
DR. RIEDIGER: I could imagine that every dentist has his own special technique and that he can always recognize whether he did a particular piece of work. At least then we could clarify whether the witness has treated the defendant and furthermore the witness can determine whether the treatment, the dental treatment as is shown by the file was actually carried out.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Riediger, we will allow the examination, and we will let it take place at fifteen minutes after eleven, quarter after eleven, and it will be in this antechamber so that the witness can be in there, and we will make arrangements with the marshal about having the defendant there.
Both counsel can be present, of course.
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honors, with regard to the assistant of the witness-
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Before Riediger makes a motion I would like to ask the witness two questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, of course. BY MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD:
Q Witness, were you present when your assistant spoke to Mr. Haensch? box? tant nobody else had this record in his hand or his possession before you would see it on your desk?
A No. The card was in my folder on the desk and Frau Jauer handed it to me together with other important papers which I had to take care of. handed to you?
Q Wherefrom do you know that? anyone would tamper with it.
Q You presume that?
THE PRESIDENT: When we reconvene the witness will be escorted into the antechamber and then the defendant will be taken in. During the recess there will be no communication between attorney and defendant involved and the witness. The Tribunal will now be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: For the purposes of the dental examination, which is to be made of the defendant involved, the Tribunal will retire to the antechamber; and there will be in attendance Counsel from both sides; the reporters, German and English speaking, will be in the antechamber to take the notes; the interpreters will also be in attendance. the back row into the antechamber. interpreters. examination, and then, of course, we will take up here in the same court room again.
COURT NO. II, CASE NO. IX.
THE PRESIDENT: The reporters are set? The witness will not be brought in. Please sit down there, Witness. Now, Witness, in view of the fact that you have stated that you can recognize your own dental work, we will submit several individuals to you and you tell us which one or ones carry dental work performed by you. Marshal, please take the first man silting there. The next defendant. What was his reply to that?
THE WITNESS: No, that is impossible. No again.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute. Sit down, Witness. Are you examining the defendant only to determine whether a particular tooth has been treated?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it is very obvious that if you are going to look only for that one tooth, which the card indicates you have treated, that this test is of no avail because all you will need to do is to find that tooth which corresponds to the tooth on the card and say that is your work.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: No, no, I don't think that he got the point. Which tooth are you looking for?
THE WITNESS: I am looking for the left upper 7, the lower left 5. The left upper 7 has a bridge, therefore it is not possible. On the second the lower left 5 was still there.
THE PRESIDENT: So that if the man who stands before you has no obvious repair work to the left upper 7 or the lower left 5, you immediately discard him as having been a patient of yours?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, the test, therefore, is of no avail because you are merely looking for the left upper 7 and the lower left 5, and not for your actual work?
THE WITNESS: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, is that so?
THE WITNESS: Yes, that is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then the left upper 7 has a bridge, therefore, it is not possible that it is your work.
(Off the record discussion.)
THE PRESIDENT: For the record. In view of the fact that the prosecution does not deny that the teeth which the witness is looking for are actually teeth which have been treated, no probative value will be served in the continuation of this test. It was assumed by the Tribunal when the test was begun that the witness would examine generally the mouths of the six defendants who are here, and that he would be able to determine or not determine merely by looking at the general dental work in the mouth of the particular person he was examining whether this work was his or not. The witness now states that he does not look generally into the subject's mouth to locate his dental work, but he looks only to see whether the left upper 7 and the lower left 5 were in any way treated. Since the prosecution does not deny that these two teeth may have been treated, the test is of no probative value whatsoever, and on the contrary might convey an impression or conclusion which does not result from the actual physical facts of the test. The defendants will not be returned to the court room. The witness will be returned to the witness box. The reporters and interpreters will return.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Prosecution counsel, or counsel for the defendant Haensch desire to address any further questions to the witness?
MR. HOCHWALD: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: We should now determine, Dr. Hochwald, whether the other witness referred to is to be called or not. It must be apparent that in view of this witnesses statement that he doesnot remember the defendant, does not recognize the defendant, has no independent recollection of any work done to the defendant, and his testimony is based entirely on this care; that the authenticity of this card is a matter of moment. with what serenity this witness who made up the card may be brought to Nurnberg.
DR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I only want to repeat shortly what I have already said. Two witnesses for who defense were heard as to the date of Haensch's presence in B erlin.
THE PRESIDENT: You are opposed to bringing in the witness?
DR. HOCHWALD: I am opposed to bringing in the witness and I do not recognize the authenticity of the charge.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Riediger, it is only fair that you be aware of what the Tribunal just stated that this witnesses testimony being based entirely and exclusively upon this card, can only have the probative value which must be obvious to anyone, so it is for you to determine whether you want this matter to rest as it is orwhether you believe it is necessary to support the alleged authenticity of this card.
DR. RIEDIGER: May it please the Tribunal, I have request for the defense that this witness be called to Nurnberg. The Prosecution objected to the introduction of the affidavit, but the witness is very important.
DR. HOCHWALD: Does the affidavit contain the name and address of this witness?
DR. RIEDIGER: It does. Berlin-Zehlendorf/Teltowerdamm. It is Mrs. Yauer, Hertha Yauer nee Schoch.
THE PRESIDENT: In view of the fact we have announced several times throughout the trial that every opportunity will be given the defense to obtain and submit testimony and evidence, even this ususual request will be allowed. It is to be regretted that all this wasn't done in ample time before we had reached this point in the trial, but the Tribunal is not going to complain or criticize anyone. We are interested in ascertaining the truth in every given instance. The affidavit will provisionally be held in abeyance until the efforts have been made to obtain the witness. The affidavit may or may not be introduced in evidence with the opportunity given to the Prosecution to cross-examine. The Tribunal instructs the Marshal, or rather the Secretary General, to immediately notify the Defense Center to contact this witness and have the witness brought forthwith to Nurnberg. The program of this week will continue as previously announced, and when this witness arrives opportunity will be found to hear her.
DR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, in view of the fact that the Prosecution does not submit that the chart are correct. I would ask the Tribunal to have the chat given to the disposal of the Prosecution, so that tin Prosecution can have a handwriting expert look over the chart and we respectfully request that the handwriting expert be heard at the same time as the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: That request is a reasonable one, we only request from both counsel the necessity for speed in all of this so that there will be no unnecessary delay occasioned by this very late evidence. The card will now be placed in the custody of the Secretary General, and the Prosecution will have access to it for the purpose of having an expert witness examine the exhibit, in order to testify with regard to the handwriting appearing upon the exhibit.
DR. HOCHWALD: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: The present witness is instructed that he must not correspond, communicate or converse with the witness who is to be called.
The witness who is claimed to have entered the various items on the card in question. You understand that, witness, that you are not to talk?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the witness will be excused.
Dr. Gick, you have filed a motion for an opportunity to crossexamine the witness who had submitted an affi*avit with regard to the defendant Strauch's mental condition. We had that witness in Court all morning, but were unable to locate you. We have now instructed that witness to be here at 3:30. Will you please be here at that time, so that this matter can be disposed of?
DR. GICK: Yes, Your Honor. This is an American physician, is it?
THE PRESIDENT: That is correct.
Who is now ready with the document books?
DR. GAWLIK: (for the defendant Naumann) Your Honor, I should like to present Document Book Naumann No. II and III and No. IV, and I would like to quote from these books.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
DR. GAWLIK: I submit first from Document Book III Naumann Documents 13 to 17, in order to prove the extension of Partisan activity in the area where Einsatzgruppe B was active when Naumann was Chief of the Einsatzgruppe B. I want to prove that the fighting in the Partisan activity was the main activity of Einsatz Group B, especially the Group Staff, and that this took up all of Naumann's time. This confirms Naumann's statements that he did not take part in any executions, and he at no time had a hand in executions, and at the same time that Naumann's time was completely taken up in combatting Partisans. I now submit Document 13, which receives Exhibit No. 8. It is on pages 15 to 16 of Document Book III. Here is the report of the occupied Eastern territories. I draw the attention of the Tribunal to the statements made in this document that the Partisans' activity in this territory increased considerably and that large areas were infested by armed bands, and that Partisan activity became so extensive that whole villages were forced to supply the Partisans with necessary food stuffs.
that Naumann was active in combatting the Terrorists.
I now submit Document 14, which receives Exhibit No. 9. It is on page 17 to 18 of the Document Book. From this document also the extent of Partisan activity and the difficulties in combatting them. The same applies to Document 15, Page 19, Doc. Book III , which will receive Exhibit No. 10.
I now submit Document 16 as Exhibit No. 11, page 20 to 21 of the Document Book; and Document Naumann 17, Exhibit 12, page 22. armed bands becomes evident, and also the difficulty of combatting these bands. It is evident from this document that the bands were heavily armed. 20. With these documents I intend to prove the other tasks and activities of Einsatzgroup B, especially of the Group Staff, and especially of Naumann himself. These also were assignments which Naumann had to deal with personally as Chief of Einsatzgroup-B, which took up most of his time and could not be left to other members.
Next I submit Document 18 as Exhibit No. 13, which is on pages 23 to 27 of the Document Book. Here is an extensive report on the reorganization of the educational system in the territory of Einsatzgroup-B. Also from this document the difficulties become evident in carrying out these measures.
2 Feb 1948_M_MSD_11_1_Arminger (Hildesheimer)
DR. GAWLIK: Now, I submit Nauman Document No. 19, Exhibit Nauman No. 14, page 28 to 31 of the Document Book. This is an extensive report concerning the introduction of the new agricultural statute, terminating the system of communal management and the re-intorudction of private owenership.
In this connection, I also submit Nauman Document No. 20, which will receive Exhibit No. 15, on page 32 to 39 of the Document Book. Here is an extensive report which goes into detail about the so-called tax detail system, the regulation of taxes and finances within the Einsatzgruppe B, the foundation of new bank institutes. From this report, it also becomes evident that the activity constituted great difficulties. From the bulk of reports received, concerning all spheres, I selected these three reports and introduce them as evidence. There is a bulk of such documents and reports which we could have submitted in order to give an extensive and exhaustive impression of Nauman's activity. These three reports, which I have submitted are typical reports of the three particular spheres of assignments. From these reports Nauman's activities become evidents in the carrying out of these measures, Nauman's work was absolutely necessary. He had to deal personally with these tasks, he personally,just as much as in anti-partisan operations, but his collaboration in the carrying out of the Hitler Order, which was issued before Naumann's time of activity was not necessary. Therefore, Nauman's statements should be credible that he did not take part in carrying out these executions, and he did not even collaborate.
The further documents which I submit concern Nauman's attitude and behavior in Holland. These documents also are to support Nauman's statements and they are to support his credibility to the effect that he did not take part in executions. They have a second purpose: If the Tribunal should hold the opinion that Nauman collaborated and participated in executions. These further documents are supposed to prove that Nauman really acted on the basis of Hitler's Order which he 2 Feb 1948_M_MSD_11_2_Arminger (Hildesheimer) had to carry out as he was a soldier himself.
But if anyone believes that he did participate, this shows that he would not have carried out these measures, if this order had not existed which he rejected instinctively. This becomes evident from Naumann's behavior in Holland, where such an order was not given. And this material has a third purpose, namely to refute the Prosecution's rebuttal Document 236. I want to draw the special attention of the Tribunal to the fact that these statements were made by official Dutch agencies, namely, the Dutch Red Cross. These are passages from Naumann Document Book II and they are contained in Document No. 9, which is Exhibit Nauman No. 16. It is page 9 to 10, and Document Nauman No. 10, which will receive Exhibit No. Nauman No. 17, it is on page 11 to 12. These two agents and representatives of the Dutch Red Cross have furthermore also made out affidavits contained in Document Book IV. It is Nauman No. 21, offered as Exhibit Nauman No. 18, pages 40 to 41 of Document Book No. IV, and Naumann No. 22, which will receive now Exhibit No, 19, pages 42 to 43.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, I don't have IV, Dr. Gawlik.
(To the Secretary General) Do you have a copy of IV?
MR. NAB: No, I haven't, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you certain that it was translated and mimeographed?
DR. GAWLIK: I have not received the translation, Your Honor, but I assumed that the translation had been submitted by this morning to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: How many documents are there in there, Dr. Gawlik?
DR. GAWLIK: Document Book IV has five affidavits. The document book itself contains seven pages.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWAL: If the Tribunal please, inasmuch as it is obvious that Mr. Ferencz has not received the document book, and I do not know any details about whether he wants me to make objections against some of these documents, it would possibly be better if Dr.
Gawlik could postpone his presentation of the document book until after the mid-day recess. I shall try to contact Mr. Ferencz. If Dr. Gawlik will or can furnish me with a German copy. I shall take these documents up with Mr. Ferenz and then I can tell the Tribunal whether we are objecting against these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean, Document Book IV?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: This Document Book which does not exist, Document Book No. IV.
THE PRESIDENT: Would that be agreeable to you, Dr. Gawlik?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, Your Honor. I agree to this arrangement.
THE PRESIDENT: Is some other defense counsel ready?
DR. GAWLIK: I still have to submit my document books for Seibert.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, yes.
DR. GAWLIK (Attorney for the Defendant Seibert): May I first ask whether Document Book Seibert No. II and III have been submitted to the Tribunal in English?
MR. NAB: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you please get mine?
You may proceed, Dr. Gawlik.
DR. GAWLIK: First I submit documents which are to prove the activity of Seibert in the staff of Einsatzgruppe D. There is first of all Document Seibert No. 30. In volume II, pages 41 to 42, and will receive Exhibit No. 27. This is an affidavit of Dr. Roessner. From this document the assignments and activities of Seibert in the Group Staff become evident, especially the fact that Seibert during his assignment in Einsatzgruppe D was only the Chief of Department III and had to make out reports about the domestic spheres. Furthermore, in order to prove that Seibert was not the deputy of Ohlendorf, this has been submitted. This becomes evident from paragraph 2 of the affidavit and it cannot be deduced from the facts that Seibert 2 Feb 1948_M_MSD_11_4_Arminger (Hildesheimer) signed reports with I.V. -- that is "for". This does not prove in fact that he was the deputy of Ohlendorf for the entire group.
Roessner is acquainted with the conditions in the agencies which concerned Ohlendorf and he knows that Ohlendorf made a special arrangement, as he never appointed a deputy for all the tasks and the departmental deputies had to sign "for" on matters concerning the department they were in charge of during Ohlendorf's absence.
I furthermore now submit Seibert Document No. 28, which is in Volume II. It will receive Exhibit No. 28. It is in Document Book II, page 39. It is the affidavit of Beckhof, a personnel official in Office III during the war. He also says that Seibert worked in the Staff as the Departmental Chief of Office III and only in this capacity and that he was not the Deputy Chief of Einsatzgruppe D.
Now I submit and offer Document Seibert No. 29, which will receive Exhibit No. 29 in Volume II, page 40. Here we have an affidavit of a general, a former general, von Halder concerning the signatures of staff functionaries. This document has been submitted in order to prove the significance of a signature on a report within the armed forces. From the affidavit of this man von Halder, it becomes evident that responsibility was assumed for the report when signing it only inasfar as the compilation of reports was concerned, that it had been done in an orderly manner from the original reports, but it does not necessarily mean that the events actually occurred and that the responsibility is actually assumed for the carrying out of the operations.
I now submit as Document Seibert No. 36, Volume IV, Exhibit 30, which is on page 51. It is an affidavit -
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, Dr. GAWLIK. Volume IV, Mr. Nab, is it available?
MR. NAB: IV?
THE PRESIDENT: IV, Seibert No. IV.
MR. NAB: II and III are all.
2 Feb 1948_M_MSD_11_5_Arminger (Hildesheimer)
DR. GAWLIK: We will come to it at a later point. to the SD organization, and I submit in this connection Seibert Documents No. 27, Volume II, which will now receive Exhibit No. 30. It is on page 38 of Volume II. Document Seibert No. 33 from Volume III, pages 45 and 46, which I shall give Exhibit No. 31 and Document Seibert No. 34 from Volume III, which will receive Exhibit No. 32, Volume III, pages 47 to 48. From these documents. Exhibits 30 and 31, the activity of Seibert becomes evident in Office III and it becomes especially evident from Document 27, exibit 30 that this activity was in no way secret or camouflaged. Document Seibert No. 34, and affidavit by Dr. Ehlich with a sketch which has been included. The correctness of this sketch has been certified to in the affidavit under oath Dr. Ehlich. This sketch gives us a picture of the difference between the SD Dews Information Service and the SS Special Formation SD, two personnel organizations Which are easily confused.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the prosecution objects against this document. The question before the Tribunal is only whether Seibert was a member of the SD or not. What the SD is and which formations of the SD belong to the criminal organization SD was decided by the International Military Tribunal. The offering of evidence as to the question of which one of the formations of the SD might have been criminal and which were not is immaterial in this trial.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, you know that the only tests to be be made in connection with membership in the SD are: Was the defendant actually a member? Was he a voluntary member, and being a member, was he aware of the criminal activities of that organization? Now, if this document goes to anyone of these three criteria, then it would be relevant, but if it merely goes to argue that the SD or some part of it was not criminal, then you run counter to what is already res adjudicata.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, this concerns the third count of the indictment whether he was aware of the criminal activities of the SD or whether he knew about such an activity.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, if it has to do with whether he knew, then it would be relevant.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I understood the explanation which Dr. Galik gave to the document completely different. He said there are two different types of SD which are different and he wants to show that he was in the type which didn't do a thing, so the explanation of Dr. Gawlik to the document certainly is a different one from the reason why he wants to submit it, so either the document may be ruled out or the explanation may be ruled out, but both cannot stand.
DR. GAWLIK: I wanted to reply the following to this, Your Honor, if the prosecutor would have let me finish, when he would have understood that there is no difference and that my statements are not by any means illogical. What I said here was only the introduction to my statements which was merely the basis for what I was about to say.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, suppose that at the end you make your objection to whatever documents you object to?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal would kindly rule just now on this document, that the document is admitted in evidence only as to the criminal knowledge of criminal activities, the prosecution will certainly be satisfied with this order.
DR. GAWLIK: Unfortunately I am not getting the opportunity to finish my statements, because the document is also relevant concerning the second point which I want to prove concerning the membership of the defendant Seibert in the SS. With this I want to prove that Seibert was not a member of that part of the SS which was described as criminal by the IMT, but he was merely a member of the so-called SS formation SD and in order to clarify this particular point, this special formation, this organization, the SD, was not an organization actually and it did not fulfill all the conditions which would make it an organization in the sense of the statutes and in order to prove to the Tribunal what this special SS formation called "SD" was, that is the second point I wanted to prove with this sketch.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the second reason, of course, is in the same way objectionable as the first reason of Dr. Gawlik. Also this second reason that Dr. Gawlik gives attacks the decision of the International Military Tribunal. Unless I am very much mistaken, I do not think that among those members of the SS which were not members of the criminal organization, the memb ers of the SS formation SD are named in the judgment; in the judgment those formations of the SS which are not to be considered criminal are emphasized. Among those formations the Special Formation SD certainly is not mentioned. I can only repeat my suggestion. If the Tribunal would kindly rule that this document can be admitted only insofar as it is offered to disprove knowledge of criminal activities and nothing else.
DR. GAWLIK: May I say something, Your Honor? It is inaccurate the way in which the prosecutor put it, that only those formations are named in the IMT which are not considered criminal but also those formations are named in the IMT judgment which are considered criminal, because it mentions the general SS, the Waffen SS, or the SS Death Head organizations, the police organizations, as far as the members were members of the SS as well. This special SS formation SD is not mentioned and I should like to point out here the following: This was not done because the IMT did not know about this special SS formation SD. This special SS formation SD was discussed at great length and described in numerous documents, before commissions and before the Tribunal. The Witness Hoepner was heard concerning this. The records proving it can be read, and, as far as I remember, the Witness Hoepn er was examined about the 1 st of august, 1946, by the IMT on the witness stand. If the Tribunal, that is, the IMT, had wanted to declare this SS formation SD organization as criminal, they would have made special mention of the SD when listing those SS formations considered criminal.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, this is entirely argument. If Dr. Gawlik is in a position to prove that in the decision of the International Military Tribunal, the Special Formation SD was not found criminal, he may do so. I do not think that this exhibit as such can prove anything which is found by the International Military Tribunal. The opinion of the judgment speaks for itself. No additional proof can be offered on the part of the Defense Counsel.
DR, GAWLIK: Of course, I will comment on this in detail in my final plea, but I haven't got this opportunity to make these statements in my final arguments concerning this and referring to this document, if this document was not admitted in evidence. I know, of course, these are arguments, but I have to argue now in order to get this document admitted. If the prosecutor -
THE PRESIDENT: In view of the feet that the IMT did indicate some exceptions to the SS formations, certainly counsel should be allowed to show that his client cones within some of those exceptions. At any rate, we will admit the document for the probative value which will be ascertained at a later date.
DR. GAWLIK: Concerning the case in chief, I want to point out the second point which I shall explain. The difference between the SS formation SD and SD Information Service as becomes evident from the chart here the letter was composed of personnel from the Criminal Police , the State Police and the SD, but the Tribunal can see from this chart that only a small part of the SD Information Service Office VI were members of the SS Special Formation SD. Concerning the political attitude we come to the next point, concerning the political attitude and character of Seibert, now I submit Document Seibert 31, page 43 in Document Book II, Exhibit 34, Document Seibert No. 32 in Document Book II, page 44, which will now receive Exhibit No. 35-- I am sorry, the preceding document was 33 and this one is 34, and Document Seibert No. 35, as Exhibit 35 from Volume III, pages 49 through 50.
I draw the special attention of the Tribunal to Documen t Seibert No. 35, Exhibit No. 35, from which Seibert's political attitude and especially his attitude towards the Jewish problem becomes evident. I would like to submit the remainder of the documents which I still have in the afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: Will other counsel be ready to continue with the presentation of document books?
Mr. Hochwald?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I have three or four documents for my colleagues and myself to submit. It will only take five minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:45.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION:
THE HARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. DURCAMOLZ: (For Dr. Mayer and for Dr. Braune.) the session so that he can discuss something in the transcript with his attorney, and I ask that he be brought to Room 57 at once.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Braune will be excused immediately and will be taken to Room 57, so that he may consult with his attorney
A. Thank you,
THE PRESIDENT: You are welcome.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I have been informed that Document Book IV for Naumann and Document Book III for Siebert are now available for the Tribunal. May I now continue?
THE PRESIDENT: Please do. Will you start with Naumann?
DR. GAWLIK: No, I will start with Seibert, because I only have one more document for Seibert.
THE PRESIDENT: Which book is that?
DR. GAWLIK: Document Book IV, page 51, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: All right proceed, please.
DR. GAWLIK: From Document Book IV for Seibert I submit Document No. 36. This receives the Exhibit No. 36. It is in Document Book IV, Seibert, Page 51. Affidavit of Woehler, and I submit it to you as proof that Seibert was not the permanent deputy of the Einsatzgroup Chief; and secondly that the work of Seibert did not include any type of executive measures. This concludes my presentation of documents for Seibert.
I now continue the presentation of documents for Naumann. I stopped with the documents which concerned Naumann's conduct in Holland. The subject matter of these documents have already been listed by me this morning. These documents follow document No. 6. Exhibit No. 5, which is the affidavit of Lily Vander Schalk, who as it is said in her affidavit, was able to establish the conflict in the conscience of Naumann between the choice of his ideals and international decency, as she expressed it.