MR. HOCHWALD: Possibly Dr. von Stein can tell us whether it is an official decree of the French Republic, which of course would change it. If that would be a decree or a regulation or a decision before a French War Crime Court, that would, of course, change the validity of the thing, but if there is only a speech or a subjective opinion of an individual given, that would not be admissible.
DR. VON STEIN: May I take the liberty of pointing out that this is a government report of a Parliamentary session which I am submitting, this is an official document, and not just a newspaper article, as the prosecution seems to think.
MR. HOCHWALD: Will Dr. von Stein enlighten us whether this was a vote or a decision of the French Assembly, or whether it was a speech.
DR. VON STEIN: I will give a short resume of the contents.
THE PRESIDENT: Just answer his question. Answer Mr. Hochwald's question, please?
DR. VON STEIN: I, also, of course -
MR. HOCHWALD: The Prosecution is interested to know whether the item which Dr. von Stein wants to submit is a decision of the French Assembly, or whether it is a speech by somebody.
DR. VON STEIN: I must say, of course, that it is a speech, not a decision.
MR. HOCHWALD: We are not in a position to cross-examine the person who made those utterances. The document is inadmissible.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is sustained.
DR. VON STEIN: In that case I am omitting a number of newspaper articles which I wonted to introduce from German newspapers. I now offer Sandberger's Exhibit 52, which is Document 10, excerpt from the Manual for General Staff Officers, 1 August 1939.
It is an excerpt concerning the responsibility of an Army commander in operational areas about security tasks, and now I submit as Exhibit No. 3 an affidavit of the assistant official Mensel on this document, and he certified that he found 7/8 of all reports coming from Estonia, 10/11, that these reports are purely reports concerning the domestic sphere, therefore, they are reports which were issued by Department III. There are a few additional documents which are contained in Document Book II-A. No. 12 which I offer as Exh. 54 is an expert opinion of Dr. Maurer concerning the applicability of Estonia Law concerning a state of emergency according to Estonian Law and Estonian justice. No. 13, which I offer as Exh. 55, is an excerpt from reports of events 181, which showed that Litsche is not in Estonia, but in the territory of Einsatzgruppe A, Loknia. I point out that document No. 15 belongs to it.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. von Stein, you refer to Document Book 2-A. Document Book 2-A contains only documents 16 and 17.
DR. VON STEIN: There is another supplement to this book, Document Book 2-A contains document 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 14 and 15 and then there is a small supplement, which has 16. and 17.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will receive it in order to finish up and then get the documents, of course.
DR. VON STEIN: Document No. 15, which is offered as Exh. 56, is a photostat of Army chart from which it becomes evident where the place Oladice is situated. This is at the lower left end of the chart, and there is also the Oladice.
No. 16 is Exhibit No. 57, an affidavit by Herbert Sandberger.
No. 17 is offered as Sandberger's Exhibit No. 58, an affidavit by one Buchner.
Buchner was a member of SK 1-A speaks especially about the events during the advance.
With to me thus far.
There is one question which I would like to ask, Mr. President.
It is highly probable that I shall be permitted to be able to submit these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: I would suggest that if you have being presented in open court.
If there is an objection then DR. VON STEIN: No, what I mean is, may I be permitted to submit this document after the final pleas?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you may submit it but not in open court; once the final pleas are terminated, naturally, we
DR. VON STEIN: No, what I mean is whether I can submit it to the tribunal if I just hand it directly to the court?
THE PRESIDENT: If it is a matter of a day or two, yes.
MR. HOCHWALD: Do I understand the Tribunal correctly, the form of a written motion?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. HOCHWALD: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Fritz, how many documents do you have to present?
DR. FRITZ: Four.
DR. BELZER: I have nine.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean number nine or "nein" meaning no?
DR. DURCHHOLZ: I just have one document.
DR. SCHWARZ: Twenty-seven documents for Strauch.
MR. HOCHWALD: I have only one for the Prosecution.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: For the defendant Braune, the defense counsel will submit one document this afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Aschenauer, I am sorry you will be delayed a little bit in the presentation of your summation, but just as soon as we finish the acceptance of the documents, you may begin, is that satisfactory?
DR. ASCHENAUER: All right, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until two o'clock.
(Whereupon noon recess until 1400 hours, 3 Febr. 1948) (The Tribunal reconvened at 1400 hours, 3 February 1943)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. WALTON: May it please the Tribunal, at this time the Prosecution offers in rebuttal Document NO-4638, which consists of two parts, the first being a cover-letter or a letter ordering distribution by General Ohlendorf of a monograph or a prepared lecture concerning some features of Nazi ideology. In view of the testimony of the defendant and in view of the testimony concerning the legality of the SD and the SS, the Prosecution desires to introduce Document NO-4638 into evidence as Prosecution's Exhibit 252.
DR. ASCHENAUER: (Attorney for the Defendant Ohlendorf) Your Honor, I object to the submission of this document.
May I point out that the reason given on the 21 January, according to the record, page 5,499 by Mr. Walton was a different one. I quote: "Mr. Walton said: 'It is a long manuscript about the lecture, which Ohlendorf prepared, about the superiority of the National Socialist form of government over the existing form of government.'" I explained to Mr. Walton that this document does not contain any contributions or any speech by Herr Ohlendorf. There is not a line in this document about subjects concerning questions of domestic sphere or concerning the independence or jurisdiction of the judges, that originated from Herr Ohlendorf. That is why, because he is informed about this, Mr. Walton wrote a lengthy argumentation about the legality of the SS and the SD. May I point out that this document, first of all, does not contain a speech by the defendant Ohlendorf; secondly, it does not contain anything on the subject of a superior state legislation, as Mr. Walton said on the 21st January; but these are legal question; thirdly, that the coordination of a speech here does not give information about opinions of the defendant Ohlendorf nor of his office or any other office with whom he had dealings.
I refer to the following sentences on the first page of this document. It says: These contributions in no case contain a conclusive opinion by Office III or the Reich Security Main Office concerning the problems treated therein, but merely are to contribute towards the clarification of the matter among us.
In the second paragraph we find the following quotation: "The existing first contributions of 27th July 1942 is the basis of this; before the recent changes in the manner in which legal administration exists in Germany was concluded recently - "
THE PRESIDENT: Where are you reading from, Dr. Aschenauer? Where are you reading? I don't find this in the exhibit.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I am reading from the first page of the document. It starts Reich Security Main Office III, Berlin SW, 11 October 1942.
MR. WALTON: He is referring to the cover-letter.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I see; very well.
DR. ASCHENAUER: This cover-letter proves that this is not an authenic opinion of Office III, but Office III wrote down a lecture which somebody had held concerning the subject of law, during the time when certain SS circles wanted to get rid of the German system of justice, and they wanted this as a basis of a discussion.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Aschenauer, the document can have no more value than what is contained in it, and if it states, as you have pointed out to us it states, that this contribution does not contain a definite attitude of Office III, Mr. Walton nor anyone else can draw from it that it does represent the definite attitude of Office III, so I don't think that Mr. Walton would want to say that this document is something different from what it says within its own context; so, I don't understand the reason for the discussion along that line.
DR. ASCEENAUER: Your Honor, I agree, if the document is accepted for the probative value it has after I have had the possibility to explain the matter to the Tribunal. I now have a further question. Will it be sufficient if I say that this contribution does not originate from Ohlendorf at any point, or shall I in truit an affidavit which is already made out to the Tribunal by Ohlendorf on this point?
THE PRESIDENT: The document itself very clearly states that it is circulated solely to foster discussion and enlightenment. It doesn't on its face purport to represent, at least on this page, the definitive conclusion of the defendant Ohlendorf.
MR. WALTON: May I make a few remarks there, your Honor? It is in the nature of testimony but I might explain that the prosecution, particularly those of us who speak no German, have to rely on what is called a staff evidence analysis which is a digest of these documents. On the basis of this staff evidence analysis which was prepared in Berlin I made my remarks before the document was translated that Dr. Aschenauer referred to, I believe, on the 21st, the record of the 21st, but that is not controlling. The claims which I make for a document in my opinion are those remarks which are made at the time that the document is introduced. Now in this document from the cover letter this material was distributed throughout the SD organization. It is an act of the defendant Ohlendorf, not the speech itself but the distribution of it, and for that reason it is introduced here as pertinent rebuttal evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: That is entirely proper. The only observation that the Tribunal was making is that the document can rise no higher than its content.
MR. WALTON: We make no claim for that, your Honor. I merely wanted to explain the difference between my quoted remarks of the 21st and of today.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. WALTON: I admit my staff evidence analysis was much more encouraging for the prosecution than the document itself revealed when it was translated.
Therefore I had to change my remarks when I introduced it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, I think that clarifies it, doesn't it, Dr. Aschenauer?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes, thank you, that clarifies it.
THE PRESIDENT: We may now proceed with the rest of the documents.
MR. WALTON: One matter, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, all right.
DR. HELM: Dr. Helm for Ruehl.
Your Honor, this morning, as exhibits Nos. 28 and 29 two affidavit documents Nos. 28 and 29 were introduced for the defendant Ruehl. They are contained in the document book on Pages 71 and 76. They were accepted but after the prosecution raised an objection and with the reservation of the right of cross-examination of the witnesses Kaufmann and Hansen and the witness Barth by the prosecution. Dr. Durchholz could not know that those two documents were only received tentatively and according to the result of the case in chief of the defense they are not important. I therefore withdraw these two exhibit numbers. With this I relieve the Tribunal of the burden of waving to have cross-examination of witnesses at this stage of the trial. I also want to say that I waive the right to cross-examine the witness of the prosecution Bash. Mr. Walton was kind enough to say that he would make a counter statement here.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, in view of the fact if the affidavits are withdrawn then certainly there is no necessity for the presentation of witnesses.
MR. WALTON: Just to clear the record, your Honor, at this time the prosecution withdraws its request to have the two witnesses, who are affiants in the two named affidavits, Ruehl 28 and Ruehl 29, brought to Nurnberg for cross-examination. However, I think it is thoroughly understood between Dr. Helm and myself that the rebuttal document, which is the short affidavit of the affiant Robert Barth, is still in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. VOGEL: Dr. Vogel for von Radetzky.
Your Honor. I take the liberty of introducing two small document books. Nos. III and IV for the defendant von Radetzky. First of all I want to introduce Document Book No. III. It only contains four documents which are to have the same exhibit numbers as document numbers. As Exhibit No. 30 I offer the document von Radetzky No. 32.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If your Honors please, we object to this document. This is an affidavit of a witness who has appeared before the Tribunal. The witness Hartl was cross-examined by Dr. Ratz at great length. He testifies in this affidavit, as I can see, to a document which was handed to Radetzky on the 17th of December '47. The affidavit itself is dated 6 January 1948. On the 12 January 1948 Dr. Ratz made a request to the Tribunal in open court as to a rehearing of the witness, and I am quoting from the transcript. Page 4885, the morning session of 12 December. The Tribunal granted this request. At that late stage of the trial we are practically not in the position to cross-examine the witness. I only want to point out that the witness Hartl has been all the time in the jail here in the Palace of Justice. When Dr. Ratz made his statement and requested rehearing of the witness on the 12th of January he was informed about the fact that Hartl had signed an affidavit for his client on the 6th of January. If he would have informed the Tribunal and prosecution at that time that he intends to introduce an affidavit the prosecution would have certainly immediately moved that Hartl may come back into the courtroom and may be heard so that prosecution can cross-examine him on this particular subject. This was practically frustrated by the presentation of the affidavit at such a late date. I, thefore, respectfully move that the affidavit might be not admitted in evidence. Moreover, I want to say that Dr. Ratz has cross-examined the witness Hartl at great length when he appeared before the Tribunal.
The question was not new. It is true that the document was then not submitted in evidence. However, we have in the opening statement already and in the direct presentation of our case made it completely clear that it is the position of the prosecution that Radetzky at certain times was independent leader of Subkommando 4a. Therefore, the submission of the affidavit should be denied. The witness was excused by the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Was Hartl questioned on this matter at all when he was on the stand by either side?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: I am sure, your Honor, that I did not question him on this particular....
THE PRESIDENT: Did counsel for von Radetzky question the witness on this matter?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: I am very sorry but off-hand I am unable to make a statement to that effect. I cannot say it. I do not think so.
DR. VOGEL: Your Honor, at the time I myself went down to the prosecution and talked to Mr. Hochwald and told him that the point which was debated again on 17 December, we would have to hear the witness Hartl again. The Tribunal here admitted this expressly, and I told Mr. Hochwald that we would make another affidavit by Hartl in order to clarify this point in this simple manner. with the other documents, then during the questioning on 24th November Hartl could have been asked about this already by-
THE PRESIDENT: Let's try to save a little bit of time now. The situation remains that we have before us an affidavit which is submitted to clarify a document which was introduced after Hartl was on the stand. Strictly speaking, perhaps the affidavit should not be received. However, if defense counsel insists upon its being received then the prosecution will have the right to insist upon cross-examination of that witness. We presume that it wouldn't take too much time to crossexamine on this one point alone. It will only be a matter of a few minutes so that now we say to defense counsel that if you insist upon introducing the affidavit we will accept it and allow the prosecution to call Hartl for cross-examination.
It is up to you to decide.
DR. VOGEL: Yes, I insist on it, and also there is always the opportunity to call up Hartl for cross-examination because he is in the prison here in Nurnberg. The defense has no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: If he is called it will he strictly limited to the point raised in the affidavit.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, proceed.
MR. HOCHWALD: The Prosecution reserves the right to recall Hartl.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: That reservation will be recorded.
DR. VOGEL: Now I wish to submit the next document in Document Book No. 3; it is Radetzky No. 33. I offer it as Exhibit No. 31. It is an affidavit of Heinz Unglaube of 15 January 1948. Unglaube was supply chief with the BDS from May, 1942, until August 1943. He can assure us with certainty that Radetzky during the period mentioned was never in charge of a sub-Kommando. He also confirms the situation set forth in Document 4771X, Exhibit 191 of the Prosecution. The next Exhibit. No. 32, will be the document Radetzky No. 34. This is an affidavit by Hans Weirup of 16 January, 1948. Right from the beginning until the fall of 1943, he was in the office of the SK 4 A. He gives a detailed report about the activity of Radetzky in the SK 4 A. Special Kommando 4-A. He confirms that Radetzky was neither Blobel's deputy, nor did he carry our the function of a sub-Kommando leader. Also, that Radetzky had no power of command in the Kommando.
MR. HOCHWALD: May I request a statement from defense counsel whether the two affiants can be brought here for cross examination of the last two documents?
DR. VOGEL: I would like to say here that Heinz Unglaube is in an internment camp and could be brought here, I presume. The other witness, Hans Weirup testifies about various facts which were already mentioned in other affidavits and proved, and, therefore, I consider his affidavit as only a supplement to the other statements by other witnesses.
MR. HOCHWALD: If I understand correctly, then the affidavit of Hans Weirup should be ruled out, as defense counsel did not proclaim that he intends to bring the affiant here for cross examination.
DR. VOGEL: Well, I have not made any statement about that as yet, that I do not want to bring him here. I would still insist that Hans Weirup be examined as a witness here because he can testify and does testify about another joint, namely the charge that Radetzky allegedly was sub-Kommando chief in the summer of 1942.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Hochwald, the rule does not say that because a man presents an affidavit that he must have standing outside the door the affiant for cross examination. It is up to the other side to obtain that person for cross examination. The only thing that the presenter of the affidavit is required to do is to furnish whatever information he has to the other side, so that that affiant may be called for cross examination if the cross examination is desired; if he is available.
MR. HOCHWALD: The only request I made, Your Honor, if Your Honors will certainly recall that was that defense counsel may state whether he is available for cross examination and what time.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. HOCHWALD: I am sorry. I meant to say that, Your Honor.
DR. VOGEL: Yes, Your Honor, Hans Weirup can be brought here, but it would take some time.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. We will reserve to the Prosecution the right to bring him in if it desires to bring him in.
MR. HOCHWALD: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Proceed.
DR. VOGEL: The next one is Exhibit No. 33. which is Radetzky Document No. 35. Thisis an affidavit by the Chief of the Ethnic German Resettlement office in Poznan, Werner Lorenz, of 12 January 1948, which reveals that Radetzky's transfer into the SS was carried out by Himmler as Reich Commissar for the strengthening of Germanism and that Radetzky could do nothing about it. Lorenz also testifies that Radetzky's application for release to join the Wehrmacht was refused.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please. the Prosecution does not want to drag out thistrial and, therefore, we do not want to call Lorenz for cross examination. However, we respectfully request that the Tribunal take judicial notice of the cross examination of the affiant who is one of the defendants in Case No. 8. This cross examination appears on pages 2,800 to 2,814 of the record of Case No. 8. I have been quoting, of course, the English record numbers.
It is the position of the prosecution that in this cross examination it was proved that the affiant -
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Mr. Hochwald, you are arguing. The record will show your references to that transcript. That transcript will be available to both sides. They may quote from it and argue from it, and the transcript will be available to the Tribunal in its deliberations.
MR. HOCHWALD: Entirely satisfactory.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. VOGEL: Your Honor, I now cone to my last document book, No. 4. This document book contains five affidavits or excerpts. The sequence of the individual exhibit numbers is to follow the sequence of the document numbers. The first document, No. 36, I offer as Exhibit No. 34. This is an affidavit by Karl Heinz Bendt of 21 January 1948, who from March, 1943, until the end of November, 1943, was Chief 3 with Einsatz Group C. Bendt describes in detail why von Radetzky could not have held a responsible position in SK 4-A, and why he was not assigned to such a post.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I am terribly sorry, but I have again to object. From the testimony of Radetzky it is clear that he left his position with Sonder-Kommando 4-A in January, 1943. This document is a information by an affiant who came to this unit in March 1943. He can not testify to facts which happened in 1942 and 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that true? I am addressing myself to defense counsel. Did the affiant come in March whereas the defendant left in January?
DR. VOGEL: Your Honor, that is correct that the affiant came there in March, 1943, but it is also correct that Radetzky was still with the Einsatz group where the affiant was, and that is why this man is able to testify about the activity of Radetzky in the year 1943.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Hochwald, if von Radetzky was still in the Einsatz Gruppe it is consistent with the possibility that the affiant would know.
MR. HOCHWALD: To the best of my knowledge, Your Honor -- my memory is not very good -- he went to Einsatz Gruppe B in January, 1943. I might be mistaken. I am sorry.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Hochwald -
MR. HOCHWALD: It is up to defense counsel to declare.
THE PRESIDENT: Suppose we accept it for whatever probative value will be assigned to it, when, in the solitude of our chambers, we are able to compare these various dates.
MR. HOCHWALD: Oh, Your Honors, I have by chance my brief on Radetzky here. According to hisown statement he left Einsatz Gruppe C in January, 1943, and went over to Einsatz Gruppe B, and we therefore respectfully move that this document may be ruled out.
THE PRESIDENT: Which document number is this?
MR. HOCHWALD: That I am sorry I am not -- but it is in Document Book 3-C, affidavit of the defendant Radetzky. It must be the third or fourth document in the document book and it is to the best of my recollection Prosecution Exhibit 132.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to withdraw the affidavit in view of what Mr. Hochwald has now said?
DR. VOGEL: Your Honors, I will not withdraw it because even if Radetzky was with Einsatz Gruppe B, the Tribunal can draw important conclusions from the statement of this witness about his previous activities with Einsatz Gruppe C. That is why I would like to ask that the document be accepted.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be accepted for whatever probative value will be assigned to it in its due time.
DR. VOGEL: The next document from Document Book 4 will be No. 37.
This will be Exhibit No. 35. This is an excerpt from the opening speech by the Prosecution in Case 8 against Greifelt and accomplices. There the Prosecution maintained that a considerable number of Ethnic Germans had no choice other than either to go as resettlers to the incorporated areas which Germany had taken over, or to go to Germany as forced labor. As Exhibit No. 36 I offer the document No. 38. This is an excerpt from the regulation about the set-up and administration of the immigration and resettlement office of the Security Police contained in the Order Gazette of the Chief of the Security Police and the SD, No. 42/41.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
This shows the competency of the resettlement agencies for evacuations. The Baltic German Immigration Advisory Office had nothing to do with the immigration agencies in Poznan. I mentioned this because the words "immigration center" has been mentioned here repeatedly.
MR. HOCHWAID: I do think your objection is clear. If the defense contends that Radetzky had nothing to do with this office, the exhibit itself is completely immaterial.
DR. VOGEL: Your Honor, this piece of evidence is only to help to clarify the matter because, as I have said, the concept emigration central office or resettlement central office was mentioned repeatedly in this case in connection with the Baltic German immigrants' advisory office in Poznan.
MR. HOCHWALD: If prosecution would claim that Radetzky had a connection with the central office, prosecution would be called upon to provide for this fact. I don't think that an exhibit can be put in evidency by saying he didn't have anything to do. The exhibit itself does not contain the name of Radetzky. It does not contain any declaration that Radetzky had nothing to do with it. I think it is completely immaterial in this case.
DR. VOGEL: Your Honor, I am glad about this statement of the prosecution, but it was just the prosecution who, I believe in the examination of Radetzky on 16 December 1947, asserted or tried to prove that von Radetzky had dealings with the deportations from the Warthegau into the Government General district.
MR. HOCHWALD: If your Honors please, I only can repeat what I have said. It is impossible by presentation of a document to prove that an individual had nothing to do by the presentation of some declaration or some decree to prove that an individual had nothing to do with it.
PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Hochwald, if the affidavit is so devoid of merit, as you indicate, then it can't possibly harm your theory.
MR. HOCHWALD: If your Honors please, it certainly does not Court No. II, Case No. IX.
harm me. I have only pointed out the complete immateriality of the exhibit. If the Tribunal finds the slightest probative value in the document, I certainly will not object to its admission.
PRESIDENT: You may proceed and then at the end we will dispose of all the documents.
DR. VOGEL: The next exhibit Number 37 will be Document Number 39 of Radetzky. This is an excerpt from the circular decree of the Reichsfuehrer SS and the chief of the German police in the Reich Ministry of the Interior in the new edition as of 1 July '42 about replacement and reserve, order gazette by the chief of the security police and the SD, of 20 July '42, third year, Number 31. This reveals that already since the 29th of September '39 the emergency war drafting applied in order to get replacements and reserve forces in the security police and the SD. Finally, the last document, Number 40 I offer as Exhibit Number 38. It is an affidavit by the former chief of the administration department of the official in charge of personnel of matters with the police headquarters, Nuermberg-Fuerth, Dr. Alfons Holz of 25 January 1948. This expert testifies from his practical experience that the personnel for the Gestapo and for the SD was obtained according to the emergency drafting decree of 15 October 1938. And with regard to paragraph 1, Number 1, paragraph 3, of the war emergency draft, he further states that war emergency drafting could nullify the state of being draft deferred and that no one could get away if he was drafted on an emergency status. defendant, Waldemar von Radetzky.
MR. HOCHWALD: Your Honors, I do not want to press my objections for the simple reason that I do think the court will decide best which one of the exhibits is material for the case of Radetzky or not. I only want to point out that the prosecution up to date has not received the English copy of the Document Book. It, therefore, would appreciate if such copies would be handed to prosecution as soon as possible in Court No. II, Case No. IX.
order that we should be able to prepare our briefs on the individual cases of the defendants.
DR. VOGEL: Your Honor, perhaps I can clarify here, that these document books have been translated some time ago. I inquired only the day before yesterday about it, and was told that the translation had been handed on.
PRESIDENT: May we ask the Secretary General to look into this matter and see to it that the prosecution receives English copies as well as the Tribunal.
MR. HOCHWAID: If the Tribunal please, it is understood that in the cases of the defense affidavits, especially of the last one offered by the defense counsel for Radetzky, the right of cross examination is reserved to prosecution.
PRESIDENT: Yes, that is always reserved when an affidavit is accepted.
DR. STUEBINGER: Stuebinger for Dr. Braune. As my last document I offer Supplement III to Document Book II. This is the Braune Document Number 59, which I offer as Exhibit Number 50. It is an excerpt from the reports from the occupied Eastern territories Number 1 of 1 May 1942. This document reveals the situation of the ethnic groups in the Crimea and it shows that the Jews only constituted 6.3 percent of the entire population in the year 1939, while the part they took in the state administration of the Crimea, according to page 3 the original, constituted 25 to 80 percent. I still have one request, Your Honor. In the Krupp trial on 16 December 1947 the English General Morgan, a member of the Interallied Disarmament Commission and Professor of International Law is supposed to have said as an expert in the witness stand that the inner German state law precedes the international law in importance. Since more than four weeks I have been trying-
PRESIDENT: Mr. Walton.
MR. WALTON: Your Honors, if he wants the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this, I feel that the proper procedure for Dr. Stuebinger would Court No. II, Case No. IX.
be to give the citation and the subject matter of which it treats and let the Tribunal read it for themselves and draw whatever judicial conclusions from it they desire. This is a witness in the case which has not been settled. We have no way of knowing whether this testimony will be refuted before the end of the trial or whether it will be ruled out or what final disposition will be made of it. I think the proper thing for Dr. Stuebinger to do at this time is leave it to Your Honors and I object to comment or any quotation on it.
PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stuebinger, you could not very well argue it, especially at this time. You may refer to it, give it a citation and then in your summation you may make such reference to it as you deem helpful to your theory of the defense.
DR. STUEBINGER: Yes, Your Honor. The explanations by the prosecutor and by Your Honor, I can only emphasize and it was my intention to submit that material, but it would have become obvious immediately that I was unable to do this until now but I have not been able to finish what I have been trying to say. I have been trying for more than four weeks to receive the transcript, but I cannot get it because no defense counsel in Krupp has received it as yet, although a great deal of transcript after that day has been completed. I don't know why this delay occurred. I would be very grateful to the Tribunal if they would intervene because the legal question treated by General Morgan concerns this case here as well and certainly one or the other defense counsel would want to refer to this statement in his final plea.
MR. WALTON: Well, I will do what I can to get this transcript for Dr. Stuebinger, but certainly this Tribunal has the power and the right to obtain for itself the transcript of any record in any court since these tribunals have equal power.
PRESIDENT: Dr. Stuebinger isn't concerned about our getting a copy, he wants to know hoe he can get a copy.
MR. WALTON: I can't speak for the German. I think I can get him a copy of the English.