DR. SIEMERS : Mr. President, I am from Hamburg myself and in November of the preceding your I talked with the witness and I gave the address when I put in my application with the general secretary for the first time. Perhaps a misunderstanding arose in some way with the other officer who transmitted the interrogatory. Perhaps they looked for a witness by the name of Schulze in some other place. The name of the Admiral is Otto Schulze and it is quite possible that someone also was looked up. being looked for and I, on my part, answered that the witness would not have to be looked for.
MR. DODD: I think the Tribunal might be interested in knowing that Dr. Siemers himself just returned from H amburg a few days ago and I think he has been there two, three times since he asked for this interrogatory. Now, if he knows where this witness is all he had to do while he was up there was to go to a military government officer, submit his questions, got them answered and bring them back and I think it is a little unfair to blame the general secretary under these circumstances.
DR. SIEMERS: I am exceedingly sorry that Mr. Dodd considers it necessary to blame me in this way. I was told that an interrogatory could not be given to the witness by me. The interrogatory meant for Admiral Albrecht, that interrogatory I brought back with me from Hamburg on the request of the general secretary for the statement of oath had been omitted. It is a matter of course for me to deal and cooperate with the general secretary in matters of this kind. However, I have submitted this interrogatory and I cannot understand how Mr. Dodd could accuse me and blame me when I do not bring the interrogatory buck with me.
THE PRESIDENT: This scorns to me a waste of time. We had better got a report from the general secretary.
MR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I believe that I still have not 3 July M LJG 6-2a been understood.
I am not accusing anyone. I am just asking for permission that I be permitted to submit my interrogatory subsequently.
THE PRESIDENT: We will consider that. We will not make any decision until we have heard a report from the general secretary.
MR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, then I should like to refer to the fact that two of my applications were granted, which were not carried through completely. One was the application dealing with the files of the British Admiralty, specifically referring to the plans by the Allies to land in Scandanavia and Finland. Purely as a matter of form I should like to say that the answer of the Foreign Office, which is known to the Tribunal, is available and the presentation of these documents has been granted by the Tribunal but the request turned down by the Foreign Office. Since this matter has not been dealt with before I should like to make this clarifying statement.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal, I think, has the communication from the Foreign Office.
DR. SIEMERS: But I did not submit it, Mr. President. Therefore, I did not know what the number would be, what exhibit number it would have amongst the files of the Tribunal. Would it be possible, Mr. President -
THE PRESIDENT: You can give it a number, certainly. Give it whatever number you think right.
DR. SIEMERS: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Give it whatever number you think right. What is the number you want?
DR. SIEMERS: May I submit this document as Raeder Exhibit Number 133 either this afternoon or the latest tomorrow morning?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: Then, Mr. President, I had made the request that Hitler's Book " Mein Kampf", the original edition be placed at my disposal. In this case as well, I should like to point out as far as I have been advised the general secretary has made every 3 July M LJG 6-3a effort, for which I am grateful, but the general secretary has not been successful in providing me with this original first edition.
the Prosecution is from the year 1933 and therefore it cannot be a basis for the argument voiced by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: That is a matter of argument.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes indeed. Maxwell Fyfe. As far as I was able to ascertain these documents, which all originate with Admiral Assmann, these documents were submitted with the remark that Admiral Assmann belonged to the staff of Grand Admiral Raeder. This is something which has been mentioned several times in proceeding records. error. Assmann was in a department for historical writings and he was in no way concerned with the staff of Raeder and in this connection it is important -
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got any evidence of the facts you are stating, or do the prosecution accept them?
DR. SIEMERS: I believe, Mr. President, that Sir David will not contradict me.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, we have had it in evidence and we accept the fact that he was in the Navy Historical Section of the German admiralty. My Lord, when I said "staff" I was speaking generally. I did not mean the Operations Staff.
THE PRESIDENT: We need not waste further time about that then.
DR. SIEMMERS: I should like to refer to one point, Mr. President, concerning those four documents: D-897, D-881, D-892 and D854. I hope that in this matter as well Sir David will agree wit me. All of the English translation bear the heading "Diary".
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, it is simply a point of how the compilation of Admiral Assmann should be described. I am quite prepared that it should be described as it is in the original one.
THE PRESIDENT: Well -
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Siemers objected to its being described as a "diary" and said that it should have been described as an index. My Lord, I do not mind what it is described as.
THE PRESIDENT: What does it matter? Let's call it an index then. Is that all your point?
DR. SIEMMERS: Mr. President, this is important insofar as here in this Court many diaries have been submitted under the designation of "diary", and these were entries-
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David says that he will withdraw the word "diary" and you may call it anything else you like. It is only a waste of our time to make this sort of technical points. Sir David agrees with you, and he has agreed to withdraw the word "diary"
DR. SIMMERS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well then. Let's not say anything more about it.
DR. SIMMERS: I quite agree, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I do not wish to take up the time of the Tribunal with all the other and very numerous errors in translation That is the reason why I did not mention them, especially as they refer to the documents Assmann, and we can see from my final argument how important this matter was, and at the suggestion of the Court, I called the attention of the General Secretary to these matters.
THE PRESIDENT: If there are any errors in translation, that matter can be taken up through the General Secretary with the Translation Department.
Dr. Siemers, it is very improper for Counsel in your position to make statements of that sort, which you have no proof of at all. You know perfectly well that when there have been any alleged mis-translation, the matter has always been referred through the General Secretary to the Translation Department and then they have been corrected, and at this stage of the trial for you to get up and say that there are many mis-translations, without any proof of it at all, simply upon your own word, is a most improper thing for Counsel to do, and that is the view of the Tribunal.
DR. SIEMMERS: Mr. President, I humbly apologize, but I do believe that I did not express myself correctly. I am not voicing an accusation, but in the case of many documents, it is not surprising that these errors did take place. I, myself, make mistakes, I am sorry.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody makes mistakes, and everybody as capable of having different opinions as to translations, but you and every ether member of the Defendants' Counsel know that these mistakes, if they are mistakes, will be corrected, if it is possible, and they know that way that it can be done, and, therefore, as I said before, it is very improper for you to got up and allege that there are a lot of mis-translations. I do not want to hear anything more about it.
THE PRESIDENT : Dr. Nelte, have you any documents that you wish to offer in evidence ?
DR. NELTE ( Counsel for defendant Keitel ) : Mr. President, in a letter dated the 1st of July, 1946, I had submitted three affidavits, after having previously submitted them to the prosecution. Those three documents will become K-23, K-24 and K-25. I beg the Tribunal to receive them, since the prosecution, as Sir David has told me, does not object to their being offered in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT : Are they in the process of being translated, or have they been translated ?
DR. MELTS : They are in the process of being translated. I have merely submitted the originals to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT : Very well, then, we will receive them in evidence and consider them.
DR. NELTE : Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT : Dr. Kaufmann ?
DR. KAUFMANN (Counsel for defendant Kaltenbrunner) : Mr. President, I have a few interrogatories which have been granted me by the Tribunal. I have the originals here with me; they have been numbered, and I should like to submit them. The Translating Division has informed me that the translations are not yet at the disposal of the Tribunal, but I assume they will be in the hands of the Tribunal in the next two days.
THE PRESIDENT : Yes.
DR. KAUFMANN : I should like to state, in a few short sentences, what the contents of the documents are, if the Tribunal wishes me to do so.
There are three documents which refer to the same subject: The testimony given by the President of the Red Cross at Geneva, Professor Burckhardt; the testimony given by Dr. Bachmann, who was a delegate to the Red Cross; and then there is Dr.Meier's testimony, and he too was an official representative of the Red Cross. March and April 1945 which they had with the defendant. Also, dealing with this subject, they show that agreements were reached on the strength of these discussions and that these agreements, in turn, led to the fact that thousands of French, Belgian and Dutch, and women and childre, could be returned to their home countries, and also that prisoners of war were discharged as well as the fact that DKD's from concentration camps were allowed to return; that Kaltenbrunner had also given permission for the Jewish camp at Theresienstadt to be visited, and that other camps could be supplied with medical supplies, food, and so on and so forth.
THE PRESIDENT : What numbers are you giving to them ?
DR. KAUFMANN : Professor Burckhardt will be Kaltenbrunner number 3; Dr. Meier and Dr. Bachmann, numbers 4 and 5.
THE PRESIDENT : Yes.
DR. KAUFMANN : A further document is the interrogatory supplied by the former Gauleiter in Upper Austria, Eigruber. That is Kaltenbrunner Exhibit No. 6. Again, I shall only refer to this document which states, among other things, that the concentration camp at Mauthausen had not been created by Kaltenbrunner, as has been alleged by the prosecution, and that he was not responsible for the life there or the entire stay of the internees at the camp. That is stated here in detail and I do not propose to read it. Kaltenbrunner No. 7. Again, I shall not read from it, but perhaps I may say, in just one sentence, that this witness is testifying that he knows that the concentration camp at Dachau, or the two auxiliary camps belonging to Dachau, were not, as has been alleged by the prosecution, to be exterminated during the last weeks or months of the war, but that such a plan had been exclusively contemplated by the Gauleiter of Munich, Geiser. witness Waneck. That will be Kaltenbrunner Exhibit No. 8.
larly to this document. It is a large document, and I shall not read from it. However, I believe I can say that this man particularly know the personality of the defendant and his entire work, as an export, in the course of many years. This witness has, for years, been an important person in the Foreign Intelligence Service He knows Kaltenbrunner's attitude regarding executive questions, and he confirms the fact that Kaltenbrunner had made an agreement with Himmler at the time that he, Himmler, would retain the executive powers whereas Kaltenbrunner would work mostly in the sector of the entire Intelligence Service.
Finally, Mr. President, there are two documents regarding which there has not yet been a discussion. Therefore, first of all, the Tribunal would have to make a decision regarding the relevancy of the documents, and also whether I shall be entitled to submit the documents at all. They are two short letters which I have received. the 4th of April, 1946. The Tribunal may possibly remember that during the taking of evidence by the prosecution there was repeated mention of the fact that the population of the vicinity had had knowledge of the deficiencies. This man, who is now employed by the American authorities, confirms his own experience. In my opinion they are a contradiction of the thesis of the prosecution. is from the well-known clergyman Niemoeller, and which is dated 17 April 1946. Niemoeller and spent some time in Dachau.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, would it not be best if we were heard on the first letter, before the Niemoeller letter is taken up? the reason that it is simply a letter. We have had no opportunity to file any cross-questions or to ask any questions of the man at all. Those letters cone in here. If we are going to submit all the letters that come in--we have bales of them, actually.
is anything here that would really be helpful to the Tribunal. on the other hand, we do not feel that we should deny ourselves the opportunity to make the entire story clear by cross-questions of some kind.
THE PRESIDENT: That is with reference to Schwalber?
MR. DODD: Yes, sir.
DR. KAUFMANN: I did not quite understand what you said, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: What Mr. Dodd said was that they objected to this document from Schwalber because they have not had any opportunity to put any questions to him, either by way of having him called as a witness or by way of a cross-interrogatory. Therefore, they object to the introduction of the document in its present form.
DR. KAUFMANN: Quite, I see. I know that this is somewhat problematical, but the Tribunal has the possibility of ascertaining the evidence value of the letters according to their own opinion. Perhaps I may submit these two very short documents to the Tribunal for then to examine. So far as I know, the prosecution know those two documents because they have been in the Translation Division, and some time ago a representative of the prosecution told me that very probably objections would be raised. Therefore, at the beginning, I told the Tribunal that the Tribunal, first of all, would have to make a decision regarding the relevancy of the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kaufmann, the best way will be for the Tribunal to read the document and to consider it.
We will do that.
DR. KAUFMANN: Very well, Mr. President. Thank you very much.
MR. DODD: I should also like to indicate to the Tribunal that we take the same position with respect to the Niemoeller letter.
THE PRESIDENT: You consider them both similarly, then ? You are objecting also to the Niemoeller letter ?
MR. DODD: Yes, on the same grounds.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Mr. President, still outstanding is the submission of the reply to the Messersmith interrogatory. The reply has been received and translated; I believe, however, that the Tribunal probably has not yet received it.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you offer it in evidence and give it a number ?
DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes, sir; I was going to.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. PANNENBECKER: But I did not expect that it would be the case today and therefore I do not have the number which I sahll give to the exhibit. May I, therefore, request that I be permitted to furnish the number later ?
I have it here, Mr. President, and I shall now submit it as Frick Exhibit No. 14. This is the reply to an interrogatory which is worded as was usually the custom with Mr. Messersmith in answer to interrogatories by other defendants, and I shall come to this interrogatory in detail during my final speech. Therefore I need not present it now. Knorad, and I beg to be permitted to submit it as soon as I receive it.
THE PRESIDENT: That has been granted, has it ? And it is now before the witness ?
DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius.
DR. SERVATIUS (Counsel for defendant Sauckel): Mr. President, a few interrogatories are still to be submitted. First of all, I submit Exhibit No. 15 to the Tribunal. That is an interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: Whose interrogatory ?
DR. SERVATIUS: Darre, the minister for food and agriculture. This interrogatory deals with matters which have already been the subject of this trial, and I should like to draw your attention to a very few points. There is the question of what was Sauckel's general attitude, particularly toward Himmler's views; and the witness emphasizes that there was considerable controversy between Himmler and Sauckel in this respect. He then mentioned one particular case which he has considered, which was directly under Sauckel's supervision in Thuringia, and he says that the freedom of the workers there was such that they were still hiring themselves out to farmers during the day, which was rather too much. He then talked about a clash between Sauckel and Himmler in the presence of the Fuehrer about the question of treatment, and he says that Himmler had stated, "I come under the Fuehrer only, and for business purposes under the Reich Marshal; and I do not have to justify myself before you". has been allowed by the Tribunal, which I sahll submit as Exhibit No. 16. I should like to underline a very few points. The witness talks about Sauckels function and the functions of Dr. Ley, and he says that Sauckel was carrying out the function of the state while Ley was looking out for the social picture welfare and social supervision. health, and supervision department had existed earlier and had continued to function under the responsibility of the Minister of Labor.
Then comes the interrogatory of Dr. Voss, which I submit as Exhibit No. 17. I shall submit the original later. I am afraid I cannot find it at the moment. This doctor was the medical officer in a camp, and he talks about the conditions in the camp, particularly after air attacks, and about the activities and welfare efforts of the Labor Front. He not only refers to the camps in which he was working but he knows a great deal generally about conditions in other camps.
His statement is a contradiction to the testimony given by Dr. Jaeger. Similarly, the following document, which I shall submit as Exhibit No. 18 and which originates from Dr. Ludwig Scharmann, who served in a different sector, also contains statements of the witness which are similar to the previous one for his sector and contains a contradiction of the testimony given by Dr. Jaeger.
That completes the interrogatories which have been granted me. Now I have a number of documents for which I have applied but about which a decision has not yet been announced. I do not know whether I am now to submit them to the Tribunal. They are mostly laws and decrees and such instructions as I would like to submit in addition to what I have already submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Servatius, the Tribunal would like you to submit them now, because the Tribunal wishes to deal with the evidence on behalf of the defense finally now, today.
DR. SERVATIUS: There is a decree by Sauckel dealing with the return transport of sick foreign workers. It shows that workers who had fallen sick were transported back and that the seal of the Red Cross was attached to the transport. The actual decree is in the official collection of laws and decrees which have already been submitted. I shall ascertain my exhibit number presently. It will be no. 99 in the additional document book. 1943, which has already been offered in evidence. This deals with the investigation of sanitary measures introduced in camps, and it deals with the accusations which have been raised with reference to these accommodation problems. of war on leave concerning the alleviation of the statute regarding "transformation". I shall also submit it and give the exhibit a number. For the moment it is my document No. 101.
Then come documents 102 and 103. They are both laws contained in the official Reich Law Gazette, and which are German instructions regarding compulsory labor service. It is the emergency services which I submit as Document 102.
tructions, but I am told that the prosecution is going to read them, and therefore I assume that I need not do so. the Eastern campaign, was active as a recruiting officer in the East. It deals with conditions, and it states particularly that Sauckel's activities has brought about a basic change in the general attitude, It is short, and I consider that it is of particular importance, because up to now no recruiting officer has been heard on the subject.
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: My Lord, with regard to that affidavit, I am told, the prosecution having not seen that at all, that that should be accepted with the same reservations as have been made in the previous cases.
THE PRESIDENT: Was that affidavit you spoke of by Count von Sprete, S-p-r-e-t-i?
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: Yes, My lord.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I was going to submit a list of all of Sauckel's decrees as Document 109, so that there w ill be a general survey of the great attention which is paid to all the small matters, Only the titles will be in that list.
THE PRESIDENT: You didn't give a number to the affidavit of Count von Spreti, Dr. Servatius.
DR. SERVATIUS: It will be given No. 108 in my Document Bock and then I shall give it an exhibit number later when I submit the numbers for the other documents.
THE PRESIDENTS: Dr. Servatius, aren't you giving your exhibit numbers now?
DR. SERVATIUS: I can't do so at the moment because I haven't got the originals with me and most of these are originals which have been submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: You see, in the case of the Defendant Sauckel, as in the case of every other defendant, the exhibits offered in evidence in his behalf should have a consecutive series of numbers and that is a consecutive series which is settled by the Counsel himself who offers the documents in evidence. It doesn't depend upon whether he has the original before him.
DR. SERVATIUS: In that case, I can give them exhibit numbers. Document 108 will have Exhibit No. 18.
THEPRESIDENT: Which is that?
DR. SERVATIUS: Exhibit No. 18.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps the most convenient way would be if you would carefully go through your exhibits and give the list to the General Secretary, giving the exactexhibit number of each document.
DR. SERVATIUS: Very well.
the position of the Reich Defense Commissioner who has beenmentioned in connection with manpower, and the Reich Defense Commissioner, of course, is the Gauleiter who has been mentioned during the case of Speer in connection with the armament industry.
These are merely the basic laws, so that they are at the disposal of the Tribunal. from the witness Hildebrandt, at Stothfang, who had been examined here in Court. It deals with the question of how far Sauckel had to obey Speer's instructions and what the relations were between the two departments. The prosecution haven't yet defined their attitude and I think perhaps it would be best if -
MR. DODD: We will be glad to have this affidavit submitted, Mr. President. We have no objection whateverto it. As a matter of fact, if it wasn't submitted by Dr. Servatius, we intended to offer it ourselves.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Of course the Tribunal thinks it is irregular, really, that a witness who has been called and given evidence, has been cross-examined -- has been re-examined and cross-examined by any other counsel for the defense who wants to, that he should be entitled to give any other evidence, but if you are both agreed that is convenient in this case, as a special circumstance we will admit it.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I of course recognize at once the Court's observation about submitting affidavits of witnesses who have been before the Tribunal. What happened here was that some rather material matters were not gone into when he was here, and I think theTribunal will find them quite helpful in clearing up the situation about Sauckel and Speer with respect to their relative and individual responsibilities for this slave labor program. Other than that, I of course wouldn't urge it at all. I think the Court will find it helpful.
DR. FALECHSNER: Dr. Flaechsner, for Defendant Speer. Mr. President I wouldn't make a formal objection against the admission of such an affidavit if I werenot convinced in this particular case that with the admission of such an affidavit a series of questions will be opened up which will, in turn, necessitate further arguments. I have only seen the wording of this affidavit this morning and I am convinced myself that further investigation of its contents will at least be necessary.
I believe, therefor that if this trial is to be shortened, one ought not to depart from the general rule in this existing case either and that affidavits from witnesses who have already appeared before the Tribunal should not be permitted. In this particular case, where there are references to the publications in the affidavit, the case could be made quite clear if these publications were submitted and, therefore, the affidavit is not at all necessary.
THE PRESIDENT : Do you wish to say anything in answer to that objection?
DR. SERVATIUS : Mr. President, this affidavit is, in fact, a supplementation of the instructions contained in Document 4006, which the prosecution are proposing to submit; but I hadn't known this was proposed. We are here concerned, in practice, with a question which was opened up by Speer's examination, namely, the significance of the Ministry of Speer in comparison to the department of Sauckel : Who, of the two, was the more powerful; who could give orders; who had to obey. I think the documents will make that clear.
THE PRESIDENT : Yes, but you and the prosecution had the opportunity of cross examining Speer when he was in the witness box and you could then have elicited anything you wanted to elicit at that time.
DR. SERVATIUS : Yes, only the circumstances were not known to me at that particular moment.
MR. DOOD : Mr. President, I don't wish to press on this at all, and if the Tribunal has any doubt about it at all I will withdraw my position. I thought it might be helpful, but it really isn't important and I think if there is any question about it we might let it go.
THE PRESIDENT : Well, the Tribunal think it is irregular to introduce new evidence by affidavits from a person who has already been called as a witness, and in view of the objection on behalf of the Defendant Speer, the Tribunal cannot accept the evidence.
DR. SERVATIUS : In that case, I will withdraw it.
That completes my statement of evidence. The only thing that is still outstanding is the Witness Letsch' interrogatory, which has been granted, and the interrogatory of the Witness Bachenbach, and I have no hopes of still receiving them.
THE PRESIDENT : Dr. Steinbauer ?
DR. STEINBAUER : Dr. Steinbauer, for Defendant Dr. Seyss-Inquart. Mr. President, at the moment there are four documents which I beg to submit and which I have received through the General Secretary. The Tribunal has allowed them and the prosecution know of them. Unfortunately, however, they have not been completely translated. Hannema, who was a director of the Bovmans Museum at Rotterdam. They pertain to the question of the alleged plundering of art treasures. I shall give this document the number 108. I shall submit the English text and the Dutch original.
The next document is an edition of the Newspaper "Nieuw Rotterdamsche Courant", dated the 17th of May, 1942, of which I have the original and a German translation. It contains a warning regarding the shooting of hostages. This document I shall submit under No. 109 in the original.
The following document is also an edition of the same newspaper; its date is the 10th of August, 1942, and once more it contains an announcement regarding the shooting of hostages. In connection with this document, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that this announcement was due to an order from the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces in Holland, General Christiansen, and that the Higher SS and Police Leader Rauter has signed it. I shall give it the number 110.
The next document is one I have only received yesterday from the General Secretariat and is a copy of the interrogatory from the Cavalry Commander Kleffel. During the period from the 27th of March 1945 until the 8th of April 1945, he had been Deputy Command of the 25th Army in Holland. He confirmed that the Reich Commissioner Seyss-Inquart had stated in a letter to the Fuehrer that he demanded the stopping of the fighting to prevent the damage being done to the country and also to prevent a famine and castrophy. This document is No. 111 of my document book and these documents had been allowed by the Tribunal. I beg, therefore, to receive them in evidence.
Today, the General Secretary's office has sent me two affidavits; one comes from the former commander of the Defense District of Scheveningen? His name is Erwin Tschoppe. He is submitting an affidavit dealing with the attitude and conduct of the defendant with respect to the evacuation of the Coastal area. Because of the short time at my disposal, I have not yet been able to show this document or the following one to the prosecution but I have already informed the prosecution that these two documents exist.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Steinbauer, these documents, I apprehend, have not been shown to the prosecution--
DR. STEINBAUER: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute; have not been approved by the Tribunal and one question that arises is: Are they very long? Because I find that the translation division has been overloaded with very long documents.
DR. STEINBAUER: No, it is a very short document, which is important to me, however, because it shows how the defendant acted during that decision and how he took care of the Dutch population.
THE PRESIDENT: If it is short and if you will submit it to the prosecution, then it can be translated and admitted subject to any objection.
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, sir. The same applies to the following document which I also received today. It is an affidavit of Adalbert Joppich.
He was the President of the German Supreme Court in the Netherlands and he is making a very brief statement about the position and the attitude of the defendant with regard to legal questions affecting the Dutch population. I should beg the Tribunal that this document should also be admitted in evidence, assuming that again I shall adopt the procedure of submitting a copy of the translation to the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: What number did you give.
DR. STEINBAUER: The copy of the document will be 112 and Adalbert Joppich will be 113. Still outstanding are the documents allowed by the Tribunal which are Bolle's affidavit, Dr. Reuter, Voelkers and Lindhorst-Herman. The General Secretariat and I are trying to obtain those affidavits. Until now, it has only been possible to establish Belle's residence. Finally, I should request that two applications should be granted, which I have mane in writing; one is the obtaining of the membership card in the NSDAP of the defendant, Which has been, impounded on the occasion of his arrest and which is amongst his personal documents and must be in the custody of the Tribunal or official custody. A few months ago I had made a request to that effect but both parties had apparently lost track of the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, you don't mean that it is in the custody of the Tribunal; you mean that it is in the custody of the military authorities.
DR. STEINBAUER: Quite right. I meant the prison department, of course.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, what was the other document?
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: I don't want totake up your Lordship's time but that membership card, that could have been applied for months ago. It is on the same footing as these documents which counsel has been putting in. We haven't seen them, I don't what this card is going to prove but it is going to be a great deal of trouble to get it here just as these documents are giving a great deal of work to the translation division .
THE PRESIDENT: What is the importance of the membership card? Presumably he knows when he became a member. What relevance does the card have on it?
DR. STEINBAUER: It is of importance because according to the war crime laws which have now been published in Austria, all members having a membership number above six and one-half million will not be regarded as the so-called "old fighters" or illegal members. Seyss-Inquart has stated in the witness box -
THE PRESIDENT: That has nothing to do with this Tribunal. It may be relevant in some ether proceeding and before some other court but not before this Court.
DR. STEINBAUER: There is a point, that the prosecution had alleged that he had been a member since 1931 and of the NSDAP but, of course, I am not trying to cause any trouble. I only thought that the membership card might be amongst the property which was taken away from the prisoner and that therefore one could have a look.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Did he deny that he was a member since 1931?
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, oh, yes. He states that he hadn't become a member until the 13th of March 1938, formally.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes; formally, I remember, yes; but he had been a member of the Austrian Nazi Party very much longer, if I remember rightly.
MR. DODD: We will agree here and now, Mr. President, that that card showed that he became a member, as far as the card is concerned, on that date. I am sure that is what it will show and if it will help the doctor, we will be glad to agree to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. STEINBAUER: The last exhibit which I am applying for is the following: During cross examination a document has been submitted, where an eighteeen-year-old female clerk of the police, by the name of Hildegarde Kunze, is stating that the sterilization of Dutch Jews had been caused.