Disciplines and centrally directed SS was subordinate to him in his capacity as Reichsfuhrer.
The defendant Keitel testified on 5 April 1946, that since the outbreak of war, the SS became more and more an independent power factor in the Reich.
Jo and his assist an had not been in formed of Himmler's full powers, and Himmler and Heydrich had usurped the jurisdiction over life and death in the occupied countries through the frequently mentioned Fuhrer Order.
What was the situation now in the Netherlands? German police was not part of the Reich Commissioner's organization, not was it subordinated to it. For it says in the decree:
"The German Police is at the Reich Commissioners disposal" which would not be necessary, if it were part of the Reich Commissioner's office . ernmental power the civil sphere, the police is not included in it. agencies in decree No.4, and that in such a way that the Dutch could clearly see what concerned them, without being affected by the differences of the Reich authorities. As regards the police, i.e. the German and Dutch Police, a second General Commissioner, as such, is appointed for Security affairs, (Senior SS and Police Officer). According to Article 5 of this decree the Seniors and Police Officer has under his command:
a) the German Police and the Waffen SS (this appointed by the Fuhrer on Himmler's reco being consulted), Rauter presented himself to the Reich Commissioner as being already appointed, end in the opinion of the Production as well, the Reich Commissioner would never have been able to appoint the Commander of the Waffen SS.
b) The Dutch police (this fact is essential, since component ).The Dutch witness, Dr. Hirschfeld who was general secretary throughout the period of occupation, expressly confirmed that Rauter was directly subordinate to Himmler and that the apparent unity of the police and administration, according to the decree, did not exist in reality.
On page 21 of his book "Axis rule in occupied Europe", Raphael Lemkin defines the task of the police as being the liquidation of politically undesirable persons and Jews, just as the main responsibility for the seizure and deportation of labor for labor commitment in occupied countries was charged to the police.
THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a convenient time to break off?
(The Tribunal adjourned until 22 July 1940, 1000 hours)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands that the British Prosecution will answer on behalf of all the Prosecutors with reference to the documents for translation of the organization of the SS and the Political Loaders, so shall we deal with these first ?
Mr. GRIFFITH JONES: My Lord, I am myself dealin with the documents for the Political Loaders, and my friend, Mr. Ellyn-Jones, is dealing with those for the SS. for the political Leaders first.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Mr. GRIFFITH JONES: My Lord, I have spoken to Dr. Servatius, who represents the Political Leaders Corps, and we have agreed on the documents which ho should submit in his final book. I have had lists printed, which show the documents which we have a reed. 250 documents, some of considerable length. We have agreed from those that a total of 90-odd documents should be included in the final book, and of those 90 we have only the passages, certain passages in them, to be translate I have a copy of the document books which have been marked, the passages which we agree, and the remainder, of course, would be excluded.
THE PRESIDENT: What length will the document book be ? Can you tell a all ?
MR. GRIFFITH JONES: Except that there will be about -- nearly 100 exhibits, but they Will be quite short, the majority of them. The longest, I think, is of two pages, an the remainin documents are just short extracts, perhaps a paragraph or two paragraphs.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. GRIFFITH JONES: Perhpas I might say this : Dr. Servatius had included in these books a number of affidavits which we have excluded because we understood the Tribunal desired affidavits to be heard before the Commissioners. He had also included a number of quotations from Mein Kampf. These if the Tribunal agree, we have excluded because we thought that the Tribunal had their own copy of Mein Kampf and it would save work in the translating and printing departments. and Dr. Servatius, I think, quite agrees that what we have put down now in Column A will meet his purpose. this morning , there are certain amendments to this list which he desires to make. He desires to include in Column A documents 68, 69, 50 and 162, which at the moment are excluded.
My Lord, perhaps it would be conveninet if Dr. Servatius and myself discussed the matter further, and perhaps you would entrust us to come to some arrangement about the inclusion or exclusion of these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
Mr. GRIFFITH JONES: I do not knew whether Dr. Servatius wishes to say anything.
DR. SERVATIUS: (Counsel for Political Leadership Corps) Mr. President, I an agreeable to this arrangement; and these minor questions which still require clearing up shall certainly be cleared up by myself in collaboration with the Prosecutor. The books will probably then be reduced from six to two In other words, there will be two document bocks left.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Yes, Mr. Elwyn Jones ?
MR. ELWYN JONES: I f Your Lordship pleases, with regard to the SS documents, Dr. Pelckmann and the representatives of the prosecution have reached an agreement as to 99 of the documents. It has been agreed that 22 should be excluded. With regard to the others, some are to be included in to to and as to the others only extracts are to be included.
As to documents 31 and 32, Dr. Pelckmann indicated that he was reconsider ring his application with regard to these two documents, and it may therefore, be possible that Dr. Pelckmann, will have some observations to make to the Tribunal with regard to them. defense have not been able to reach an agreement. Dr. Pelckmann insists that those documents are necessary for his case, and it might, therefore, be convenient for me to indicate to the Tribunal the prosecution's objections with regard to these six documents. before the first meeting of the Reichstag, after the Nazi seizure of power, by the Social Democrat leader Wells. This extract states that Wells'party favored the plea for national equality and denied Germany's war guilt. I submit, on behalf of the prosecution, that that extract is wholly cumulative There is an abundance of evidence of that kind before the Tribunal already. It is in any event, I submit, not relevant to the SS case.
THE PRESIDENT: Germany's war guilt, at what time ?
MR. ELWYN JONES: With regard to the war before the last one.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. ELWYN JONES: I finally suggest that if that document is admitted by the Tribunal, then it would be proper in the interests of historical truth, for the extract to be continued to include thy severe criticism of the Nazi Party made by Mr. Wells. cher Beobachter giving a quotation from William Randolph Hearst's alleged statement to the defendant Rosenberg on the 3rd of September, 1934, to this effec when that distinguished gentleman was in German three years ago there was the greatest disorder threr; to day, the 3rd of September, 1934, under Hitler's leadership, Germany is a country of order.
what even Himmler has described as the appalling murders of the 30th of June 1934. and finally, is of no probative value whatsoever. cher Beobachter purporting to be an American athlete's impressions of a journey through Europe in 1934, He states that he is satisfied with what he saw in Germany. Again, I submit that that is cumulative, irrelevant to the SS case, and of no probative value. an extract from a book by an author alleged to be an American, which was significantly published in Germany in 1935. It is a long extract dealing with concentration camps. It describes a visit by the author to Oranienburg concnetration camp, in which he refers to the modern sanitary installations there bedrooms which are apparently as good as these of the American army; the prisoners apparently ate exactly the same dinners as the camp commandants and the SS guards. The author says that they had three rich meals every day, naturally without luxury, and he goes on in that vein. I do submit that that extract is of no probative value whatsoever. be the result of certain experiments carried out by American scientists with : vaccine said to be immunizing.
Number 102 is an extract from a book, "Am American Doctor's Odyssy", referring to further experiments with agents said to be immunisinz and to other experiments in connection with the beri-beri- disease. facts set out in these extracts, but I submit that even if they were true the; have only a tu quoque relevancy, and I submit should not be included in the documents for the SS organization.
have reached an agreement and there is no more to say, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to hear Dr. Pelckmann.
DR. PELCKMANN: Mr. President, I have to occupy myself with those vario documents which have just been objected to by the prosecution. First of all, I refer to document 31 and document 32. demanded that students should enter the SA and the SS. This is a question which affects the SA. In the first place, the SA have not yet completed their collection of documents. I think these documents are going to be submitted by the SA, and I shall therefore put them aside for the moment. Let us first come to document number 69. jective truth is contained in them, or whether they contain objectively the truth. They are merely submitted in order to point out how the readers had to be of the impression that true facts were being represented, and these facts were decisive for the formation of an opinion on the part of the German people as well as, of course, the members of the SS who were integral parts of the German nation, just as they were vital for the formation of an opinion on the part of a Party member or a non-Party member. I believe that matters will have to be looked at from a different point of view in this connection than in connection with the individual defendants. The attitude adopted abroad cannot be relevant with reference to individual defendants because the prosecution are charging, with reference to a major portion of the defendants, that it will have to be taken for ranted that the majority of the defendants deceive foreign countries. fects the SS members also -- what had been thought and done abroad must be decisive with reference to the formation of an opinion as to whether the Nazi regime had been criminal or not. That is a general point of view which I think applies to all these documents.
Social Democrat member of Parliament, Wells. It is merely to show that this Social Democrat deputy himself, after the seizure of power by Hitler, did agree with Hitler in that onepoint, namely, that the Treaty of Versailles should be fought against. Objectively, therefore, I am not saying anything about the justification or non-justification of the Treaty of Versailles I am merely trying to show what the masses of the people were thinking and what the followers of Hitler were thinking -- Hitler, who had just come into power -- in particular the point that even a Social Democrat agreed to the Party program at that time. cularly for the SS, because they, just as much as all the other Germans, would be an instrument for the formation of opinion.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean that the document says that the Treaty of Versailles should be fought against by war, or should be attempted to be changed by negotiations ?
Dr. PELCKMANN: No, it does not by any means mean that the Versailles Treaty should be fought against by war. cher Beobachter. publishing house, who, as far as I am informed, had considerable influence in America. That statement was made, as the prosecutor emphasizes quite rightly a few months after the blood purge of the 30th of June, 1934, that is, in September of 1934. That is to say, he states that he had been to Germany three years before and had found the greatest chaos, and that when he visited Germany under Hitler's leadership he found perfect order. objective facts ; I am stating, that we are facing something here which was said by someone coming from abroad, who, was of importance in the publishing field, and who speaks about conditions in Germany. That is, we are here concerned with something that was spread abroad and which was brought to the notice of the German people by means of the considerable National Socialist propaganda machine.
Therefore the German people, and with them the masses of the members of the SS could not assume anything other than that this publisher was confirming, their true, honest belief of the time, namely, that here there was order and something was achieved toward peace.
The second statement in Document 86 is something along similar lines. We have a report of the 27th of September headed, "America is participating in the Olympic Games. An American leader has investigated the question very carefully whether the American nation ought to participate in the Olympic Games, and he then made a report in America in which he made statements about his experiences in Germany. He new expresses himself as being very much in favor of American participation in the Olympic Games." which America would participate in the games. public opinion, which also applies to the masses of the SS members, meaning that a country which was absolutely positive in its attitude towards the new Germany was announcing its agreement to the trend. I beg you not to forget that we are here particularly concerned with various years and various periods during the discussions before this High Tribunal about the principle questions against the organization. It has been pointed out that various periods would be of importance. You must be aware of the fact that, particularly since the SS after 1933 was increasing its membership number rapidly, it must have been very important that countries abroad, particularly during the years after the seizure of power, would render testimony of one sort or another the purpose of which, I submit, was to indicate its agreement to the trend. expected; but that, of course, was necessary because the principle line of the defense of the organization has not yet been discussed before this High Tribunal.
Then we come to Document No. 96. Here again it is a voice from America. The American journalists, of course, are not in a position to investigate what qualities American journalism might depict; but again the objective importance is that it is the voice of an American journalist whose comments were published by a well-known German publisher in a bock which had a tremendous number of sales. This American journalist is describing, only on the pages which I am quoting, among other things the conditions in Germany, and among them the conditions in concentration camps.
of the opinion that again this, in 1935, was of importance to the question.
THE PRESIDENT: Could you tell the Tribunal the name of the journalist?
DR. PELCKMANN: Yes; his name is "Doug" Brinkley, for Douglas Brinkley -- D-O-U-G-L-A-S B-R-I-N-K-L-E-Y.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you spell it again?
DR. PELCKMANN: Douglas -- D-O-U-G-L-A-S; Brinkley -- B-R-I-N-K-L-E-Y I had already said that I knew this man even less than the Judges. But you have to realize that after all this was published in Germany; and the average German is hardly concerned with respect to an American journalist whether he is only a lesser-known American journalist. And as far as the knowledge of the Germans in Germany and in the German SS, in particular, goes, this statement must be relevant, because during the taking of evidence, even before the commissions, I have shown, or shall show, that knowledge of conditions in concentration camps was confined to a very small circle who were occupied with these camps.
Finally, Documents 101 and 102. Here we are concerned with the question of the medical experiments on living human beings. First of all, I should like to say that I do not by any means represent the view that experiments undertaken in concentration camps conform with the principles of humanity. Without detailed evidence, I am not capable of passing judgment on this point; but I an establishing from scientific publications of recent date that the question of whether experiments leading to the death of human beings had to be carried cut on tons of thousands to save the lives of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of human beings, is, at least, contested in scientific circles, and, as I have shown by means of these documents, has certainly been affirmed by well-known American and British scientists. as I have been trying to prove in the commission hearings, were volunteering for such experiments. I an pointing out, however, that the proof that such experiments were carried out abroad is being furnished, in my opinion, by the wording of these statements; and the experiments were carried out on people who did not volunteer for these experiments.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you mind pausing there? I thought you said that they had volunteered for it.
DR. PELCKMANN: I said that these documents do not show clearly that experiments made abroad were made on volunteers, whereas I an alleging, I must state, on testimony given up to now, that experiments in concentration camps were carried out on volunteers.
THE PRESIDENT: I was only asking you what those documents that you arc speaking of, 101 and 102, said. Did you say that they show that the people who were experimented on volunteered for the experiments?
DR. PELCKMANN: No. I said, Mr. President, that one or the other of the documents states quite clearly what the position was. One document seems to indicate that the people did not volunteer. what appears of more importance to me is that -
MR. ELWYN JONES: If the Tribunal please, I do not think that the defending counsel's statement should go without challenge. It appears from the document 101, the report from the magazine, which is not a scientific magazine -- it is "Time" magazine, which I understand is not a work of science that the extract is silent on the question whether the persons who were used for these experiments were volunteers. of the experiments were volunteers.
DR. PELCKMANN: Quite right. The second document deals with voluntary experiments. The first document, however, leaves the question open. But I am concluding from circumstances which the documents show that it does not seem to be absolutely certain who were volunteers. An extract from a fairly recent publication, "Time", of the 24th of June, 1946, deals with a new medical fight against tuberculosis. American scientists have carried out experiments with tuberculosis innoculations on 3,000 Indians, half of whom had been innoculated, or vaccinated, with a drug. The others received a harmless vaccination. Among the vaccinated group, 40 tuberculosis cases developed; of the non-vaccinated group, 185 cases developed, and 38 died. Furthermore, experiments were carried out on people who did not suffer from tuberculosis.
The other document is a German translation of an American book, "An American Doctor's Odyssey"; and in that it is said that experiments were conducted on criminals with respect to the disease beriberi, and that often the sentence against the criminals was changed because of participation in this experiment. These experiments were made by giving some of the inmates polished rice and the second half of the inmates unpolished rice. Then the two groups were exchanged, and the sick ones became healthy and the healthy ones sick. The effect of these experiments and of the disease, in general, is very strong. The subjects very often die of a weak heart.
I quote from this book: "I remember the impression made upon me by the huge hospital for beriberi incurables at Singapore, where these poor people were crawling around on their hands --"
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): We do not need all the details of it.
DR. PELCKMANN: In other words, I am merely going to say that at least we are concerned here with the contested scientific opinion-
DR. ELWYN JONES: I am intervening again. But such a sinister implication is being given by the alleged purport of these extracts by defending counsel that I really must protest. The report that is given is of the symptoms of beriberi disease; it is not an account of the result of these experiments at all. The experiments took this form: That some Malayans were tested with their ordinaty diet of polished rice, which is said to bring on beriberi: other prisoners were tested with a diet of unpolished rice. And it was pro on that a diet of polished rice, which is their usual diet, brought on beriberi. There is no sinister import. There is no Dr. Rascher element about this.
DR. PELCKMANN: I should only first of all finally come to the objective angle. I an alleging, or the Defense is, that these experiments too were kept extraordinarily secret.
THE PRESIDENT: We have rot the essentials of the argument.
DR. PELCKMANN: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: We will now hear from the United States Prosecutor with reference to the General Staff and High Command, the SD, and the Gestapo.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, with reference to the SD and the Gestapo, we have cone to a complete agreement with Defense Counsel so there is no contest concerning the documents. They number some 150 pages for the Gestapo, and some 80 pages for the SD. been able to agree on a few documents. In the first document book No. 1, Document No. 5, we have objection to its translation certainly, because it has to do with a certain General Busse and concerns the political feelings of some of the generals towards National Socialism. It is simply his opinion and does not purport to be anything more. There are graphs and charts and so on attached to them and they are made to appear as if they are based on the opinions which General Busse gathered through conversations with other people. There is nothing to show that he is in a position to know of these things.
Document No. 8 we also object to because again it is an instrument based upon the opinion of General Winters. It is a collection of the opinions of other people. Insofar as we can tell he made some kind of a poll, a private poll of his associates, and these he collected into an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the nature of the actual document? Is it a publication?
MR. DODD: No, sir, it is not a publication. It is a statement, a sworn statement, of General Winters.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it sworn to?
MR. DODD: Yes, sir, it is.
THE PRESIDENT: Busse's and Winters' statements, they are both sworn to?
MR. DODD: Yes, sir, they are.
THE PRESIDENT: And what's the date of then, 1946?
MR. DODD: Yes, sir, very recent. Some time in June, 1946.
THE PRESIDENT: What's the date of that one?
MR. DODD: One of them is just within the last two months.
Document No. 9 is of the same character. Again it is a statement based on written opinions. The individual who makes the affidavit considers this and inquires of other people.
Document No, 11 is a newspaper article about General Marshall's report to the Secretary of war of the United States. That has already been introduced here by the Defense and our objection is somewhat technical but nevertheless necessary. We feel that a newspaper extract should not be used, particularly since the document is in evidence. It is Jodl Exhibit-56. We have not been able to make that clear to Defense Counsel so far.
Document No. 13 is again a political opinion or statement of General Winters based on another one of his polls which was conducted among his fellow prisoners concerning their attitude toward the so-called Commissar Order, and besides, this matter has been handled before the Commission established by the Tribunal. This matter was objected to before the Commission and the objection was sustained. In any event, we also object here. We object here because it is of no value whatsoever.
Document No. 20 is a letter written by a General Seidler.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, Mr. Dodd.
MR. DODD: The letter written by Dr. Seidler, of course, is not a sworn statement. This is document No. 20 and we object to it on that ground. Besides, we have very grave doubts about its value in any event.
Document Book 2 contains one document which we object to. That is Document No. 15. It is not an affidavit, but instead, it is an unsworn letter from General von Grevenitz to General von Kleist under the date of June 24, 1946, which, in our judgment, is of no value and we do not see that it would be helpful in any event to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, will you tell us with reference to these documents that you object to, how long they are?
MR. DODD: They average, from what I see of the German text, two to three pages and attached to some are drafts. Do you mean the whole, in total?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, take them in order, starting with No. 5.
MR. DODD: That has two pages. It is the statement with the draft attached to it.
THE PRESIDENT: What about Winters, No. 8?
MR. DODD: That's seven pages and two pages of drafts, which makes it altogether nine pages. The newspaper article about General Marshall's report, I don't know. So far, only one typewritten page. Document No. 13 is a ten page document. General Soldier's letter is one page, and Document No. 15 is only one page. It is also a letter.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Now, Dr. Laternser.
DR. LATERNSER: There remains yet certain documents about which there are arguments. First of all, Document No. 5. The table submitted with No. 5, on page 29 only refers to historical facts which are graphically represented in that table in order to show their extent and the effect they had amongst the military leaders to which they refer. The affidavit which is attached, the affidavit of General Busse, is not, as the Prosecution alleges, to state the facts which are historically known in any case, or to prove them, but it is merely to prove that table. It is not, therefore, a private opinion on the part of General Busse. The admissibility of that table can not, therefore, be objected to.
With reference to Document No. 9, I shall state my opinion collectively because the objections raised against it are similar. The list contained therein is meant to facilitate the judgment passed by this Tribunal against persons we are concerned with. We are not concerned with written passages, but we are concerned with lists and I am only too willing, should the document be approved, I am only too willing to furnish the numbers of that list. February, 1946. This document contains the names of all the persons who are supposed to be subjects of the indictment and it also contains the period during which they supplied them. This prosecution document, USA-778, does not state a source on which these statements are based but they are merely allocations on the part of the Prosecution, therefore.
I have never used this document, USA-778, in asking General Winters to compare these lists which I am submitting and contrary to the objection of the Prosecution, the Tribunal will be in a position to judge particularly well what the situation was since General Winters appeared personally before the Tribunal on behalf of Col. General Jodl. The actual lists contained names of dead persons and also names of persons who occupied temporary positions but not the names of the persons who occupied the final positions. According to the list you arrive at the number of 56 people so that the actual judgment would therefore have to refer to 56 people's lists. They are also listed in this document while commanders were removed because of differences of opinion.
occupied positions which the prosecution have referred to. That document is relevant because fo the alleged conspiracy. If, therefore, the Tribunal desires to have a good factual basis for judging the circle of persons indicted, then these lists would have to be accepted. The lists already accepted and submitted by the prosecution, namely Nos. 6, 7 and 8, can only refer to the same or similar sources as the list which I am submitting, but the lists of the defense are giving the origins and also the sources and can be checked. Had I used the same way as the Prosecution, then I would merely have submitted the lists without adding and affidavit to them, a certificate; and therefore I apply to have these documents admitted.
No 11 exists as exhibit Jodl No. 56 in the same form as has been accepted by the Tribunal, a fact which, incidentally, I referred to immediately when talking to the Prosecution, and my attempts to make the position clear were unsuccessful.
THE PRESIDENT: No. 11 we understood was a newspaper report with reference to General Marshal's report.
DR. LATERNSER: When that objection was brought up I immediately pointed out that the same document to which I will refer has already been submitted on behalf of the defendant Jodl. That is the Marshal report. In other words. I withdraw this document of mine.
THE PRESIDENT: You are withdrawing it? I see.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, as the same document is already in the possession of the Tribunal. I merely wanted to include it in my book for the sake of completeness. Then I merely want to remark, Mr. President, that attempts to make this clear to me were not necessary on the part of the Prosecution, because when arguments are so simple I usually understand them fairly quickly.
Document No. 13 again is based on USA 778 as far as the circle of indicted persons is concerned. This list, also compiled by General winter, is meant to prove the clear-out attitude on the part of the generals with reference to the commissar order, which I want to show clearly. As that list is based on the list submitted by the Prosecution and the affidavit which is added to it show the exact origin and authors sources, the document can be checked for its value. The objections on the part of the Prosecution may detract from its value as evidence, but the documentary character of the document cannot be destroyed, and there again, that list would have to be admitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Hasn't Document No.13. that is to say the subject of the attitude of the generals to the commissar order, already been dealt with before the Commission?
DR. LATERNSER: Yes. Mr. President, but examination of witnesses and submission of affidavits cannot give the same satisfactory picture which I am attempting by means of submitting this document. This document contains the names of the generals who belonged to that so-called group, and I have marked a paragraph which deals with the question of when the order was received and another paragraph which deals with the question of whether the order was carried out, and the facts which General Winter is stating in this list are explained by him in his affidavit which is attached to the list itself; and he goes on to quote the sources from which he had gained his knowledge, so that I could investigate the sources and by that increase the evidence value.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, you have called a certain number of witnesses before the Commission, have you not?
DR. LATERNSBR: Yes. I had eight witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: I suppose all of them, or almost all of them dealt with this subject. You put a certain number of affidavits and those affidavits have dealt with this subject. have they not?
DR. LATERNSER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: How many affidavits have you put in before the Commission?
DR. LATERNSER: I cannot, Mr. President, give you the exact number at the moment. There are only two affidavits -
MR. DODD: There were 72 of them. Mr. President. He put in 72 of those affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, isn't this really an attempt to extend and make more exhaustive the proof which you are submitting?
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, In connection with this commissar order, we are certainly concerned with a criminal order, and I was merely trying to show to the Tribunal with this list and to make it particularly clear how exemplar on this point the high Generals had conducted themselves; and I had summarized the outcome of that part of the evidence in this list which was compiled by General Winters so that the High Tribunal will be in a position to judge whether truth is contained in this list or not.
I am merely trying to say that the objections by the Prosecution are merely affecting the value of this document but not the document in its administration, which I apply for.
THE PRESIDENT: But if you put in 72 or 82 affidavits before the Commission, why shouldn't you put in this document before the Commision?
DR. LATERNSER: Well, but here we are not yet concerned with affidavits. Up to now only affidavits have been submitted whereas here. in Document no,13, we have the list, the most important thing, and the affidavit which is attached is merely an appendix to that list. It is the explanation to the list, which is necessary. The main point of this document, therefore, is the list and not then be room before the Commission for that.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Laternser, but it doesn't make it inadmissable before the Commission that it is an affidavit exhibiting a list. It could have been put in before the Commission, and if it had been put in before the Commission it would have been brought to our notice in the course of everthing that goes before the Commission. Also, it is pointed out to me of all documents, they could all have been put in before the Commission.
DR. LATERNSER: No, Mr. President, that point of view can't be right. Up to now we could merely submit affidavits to the Commission and not documents. The documents were to be included into the document books, and that is what we are negotiating for today. This no. 13 is a document itself, it is a list whereas the affidavit is purely a subsidiary document. This is merely meant to explain. Will you please make a decision?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we hear what you say and we will consider the matter.
DR. LATERNSER: Then I Wish to speak about Documents No. 15 and No. 20. Both are letters, the admissability of which is of importance to me particularly Frequently ordinary letters have been submitted in evidence during this trial. I will remind you in particular of the Reiner letter in the case of the defendant Dr. Seyss-Inquart. Then there is the letter of Colonel General Seitler, which is No. 20. This is of particularly great value to me because it shows that because of the efforts of a general who is indicted, the commissar order was rescinded. That is why this letter achives particular significance to me as defense counsel of the indicted group.