It extends over certain ones. I hoped we hadn't missed them but we have been through the and can't find them.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that leaves the application of Dr. Stahmer in this position. The document that reference is made to is No. 008, which is a letter of the witness Sievers and it contains the sentence: "As I have informed you, the direction for carrying out the experiment is in the hands of the Director of the Hygienic Institute of the Reich University of Strasburg. Professor Dr. Haagen, Major in the Medical Corps and Consulting Hygienist to an air fleet, who was commissioned with this taks by the Reich Marshal, the President of the Reich Defense Counticl..." That, my Lord, is the effect of it. The position is that when Fieldmarshal Milch was giving evidence, letters were put to him, on document 343-PS and the second of which, under date of the 31st of August, said that he had heard with great interest of the reports of Dr. Rascher and Dr. Romberg -- "I am informed about the experiments. I shall ask the two gentlemen to give a lecture combined with the showing of motion pictures to my men in the near future." acting as the signatory for his own medical inspection in the air force when he signed these letters and he couldn't remember anything about them. My Lord, that was the way the evidence was left. As to the rulings of the Tribunal, there are two that seem to be applicable. One was that when the Tribunal decided that the order should be final speeches of the defendants before the taking of evidence of the organizations, the Tribunal stated the 31st of May, that the defendants will be allowed to call to the attention of the Tribunal any circumstances developed in the hearing of the organizations which is thought to be helpful to their decense; and, my Lord, previously the Tribunal had laid down the general ruling that certain sub-paragraphs of their ruling of the 23rd of February do not limit the power of the Tribunal to allow a defendant to be recalled for further testimony in exceptional cases if, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the interest of justice so requires.
My lord, the prosecution feel naturally reluctant even to suggest to the Tribunal what is an exceptional case and what are the interests of justice in a particular case but, My Lord, they do want to make two points--one particular to this application and or in general. The point peculiar to this application is that it was known, of cours when the defendant Goering went into the witness box that there were these letter in existence and that his second-in-command. Fieldmarshal Milch, had said that t medical inspection of the corps of the air force were dealing with these experiments and in touch with the SS on them. My Lord, as far as we can find, the matter was not pursued after that: therefore, at that time, the defendant had notice of the general position although not -- I wuite agree with Dr. Stahmer--with those particular experiments dealing with spotted fever.
My Lord, the prosecution desire to emphasize this, that this procedure ought to be confined to exceptional cases where the interest of Justice requires this course very clearly. It would be unfortunate if this procedure of recalling were to become common or were to be deals with on any points which are not of primary importance. Your Lordship, of course, remembers that the English rule is that the procedure is only used for matters which are ex improvise. As I say, the prosecution here cannot say that the particular point of spotted fever is not ex improvise but the general position of experiments was brought to the defendant's attention before he gave his evidence and therefore does not arise as an unforeseen point. I don't think that the prosecution can help the Tribunal further regarding this matter.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the matter. On Monday the Tribunal will sit until one o'clock. After one o'clock, they will sit in closed session.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL*FYFFE: I am much obliged.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 19 August 1946, at 1000 hours.)
HERMANN WILHELM GOERING ET AL., DEFENDANTS, SITTING
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I would like to be heard very briefly this morning on the application of Dr. Stahmer for permission for the defendant Goering to take the stand. I made no objections Friday, but I feel that I should make one so that the Tribunal will know what our attitude is. distinguished colleague, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, but I do wish to add a few comments on behalf of the United States. Dr. Stahmer, as we understand them, are the evidence or the testimony of the witness Sievers and the document which was offered during his examination, wherein there is some indication that the defendant Goering had authorized or ordered a Dr. Haagen to institute these medical experiments.
Now, it seems to me that the reasons which I called to the Tribunal's attention at the time of the Funk application apply here. Of course, I accept the ruling of the Tribunal with respect to the Funk application with good grace. I do not want to have it appear that I am raising objections against a matter that has been rule on.
THE PRESIDENT: Which application did you say ?
MR. DODD: The Funk application. It seems to me that there is a similarity in these matters, and particularly the Funk experience now would seem to have some bearing on this Goering application. It is my own judgment, which I respectfully offer for the Court's consideration, that Funk did not really add anything pro on can to the proof in this case by his re-appearance on the stand. He only succeeded in taking up a little of the Tribunal's time.
already denied really the heart and soul of the Pohl affidavit and that he could not do much more than re-affirm it on the witness stand, and that is, I respectfully suggest, almost precisely what happened. to call to the Court's attention that long before Goering took the witness stand the Prosecution had offered its proof concerning these Luftwaffe medical experiments, so that he knew about them; his Counsel knew about them. and if his Counsel had cared to inquire about them, he could have done so on Goering's direct examination, but no chose not to do so. He did not raise the question at all. He passed it by and preferred, as was his right I assume to rest the matter with Goering's witness Milch, and we cross examined, through our Chief Counsel, Mr. Justice Jackson, the witness Milch on that question.
ledge or participation in these Luftwaffe medical experiments it is a very simple matter and there is some precedent here for it now in view of the Frank affidavit. I suggest he file a very brief affidavit that would be no more than a few short sentences saying he did not have knowledge and that he did not participate. The Tribunal allowed Frank to do that. He went pretty far. His affidavit took 20 minutes. I certainly do not think it would be necessary for Goering to take anywhere near that much time. As an alternative, and I have not talked with my French and Russian colleagues, Sir David Maxwell Pyfe and I agree, and I think they will, that the records show that Goering denies that he had knowledge of or participated in the Luffwaffe experiments. That would be satisfactory to us. In any event, what we would like to avoid is any kind of a procession to the witness stand by these defendents. They have had a full hearing. This Tribunal has been very patient. I think they will be imposing on the Tribunal if they take the stand for these purposes which can be accomplished in a much more simple manner. that Goering really wants to take the stand for this simple purpose. I think he wants to filibuster against judgment. I think I would be remiss in my duty if I did not so advise the Tribunal this morning. Therefore, we object very strongly, if I may say so with great respect, and ask that either he submit his denial in the form of an affidavit or that the stipulation in the form we suggested be accepted by the Tribunal. lar application be refused at this stage of these procedings, the opportunity to again get on this stand and again take up time with matters that really do not go to the heart of the proof. I would be the last man here to try to cut out of this very important trial anything that I thought was really vital or important. I would not cast any shadow of unfairness or any suspicion of it, upon this splendid record of fair-ness the Tribunal has compiled.
I do not believe any prejudice will be evidenced if we ask Goering to fill out a brief affidavit or if we ask his counsel to agree to our offer to stipulate. Thus we will save much of the Tribunal's time and we will got on further with these proceedings.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the matter.
Dr. Servatius, you were going through, as I said on Friday with great ability, these various affidavits, were you not?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it not the case that all these affidavits were summarized in the proceedings before the Commission and we, therefore, have before us a reference to each one of these affidavits?
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, that is only partially true. I, personally, did not attend all the sessions of the Commission. Therefore, I do not have an exacting over-all picture. The affidavits which I wish to submit now, I shall try to characterize most briefly in order to turn to those affidavits which were not dealt with in the Commissions and these were but veryvery few.
THE PRESIDENT: Up to the present, I am only pointing out to you these things with reference to the past. You have drawn our attention to a number of affidavits. I find in the record before the Commission that nearly all of these affidavits have been literally and expressly summarized by counsel on behalf of the Corps of Political Leaders. The prosecution has stated its position.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, Mr. President, it is a brief compilation. It was submitted at the beginning. Perhaps I can briefly make statements as to the last few affidavits so I can turn over to the collective affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: I hope you will be very very short, then, and confine yourself only to these affidavits which have not been summarized before the Commission.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I should like to refer to Affidavit Number 47 and affidavit Number 48. Both of them deal with the Communal policy. This is an office of but little significance. I should like to refer to the contents only. Then there is the affidavit of a Gau Economical advisor. During his two years of activity, he had but once to speak to the Gauleiter. 50 which the Plenipotentiary for official delegates opposes. We see in the actual racial policy we have known it during this proceeding, he had nothing whatever to do. Then follows the Affidavit of Gauamtsleiter who points out the separation of the various officers and the segregation. The last is an affidavit by a Gauamtsleiter for the care of war victims. He points out the various officers connected with this work. In this way, Your Lordship, I have come to the end of my dealing with the separate and single affidavits, however, I should like to submit a few more affidavits. with 53. Before I turn to those I should like to submit 4 single affidavits first. The reason for submitting them now is that they were mentioned rather late by the Prosecution. The first one is an affidavit by Gauleiter Hoffmann. It deals with the Euthanasia treatment. He gives his opinion. This is affidavit Number 65. I should like to submit this affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this an offidavit which has not been submitted to the Commission?
DR. SERVATIUS: It was not submitted to the Commission for at that time the Commission had concluded its hearings already.
THE PRESIDENT: You cannot put in any new affidavits. The Tribunal so rules.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, they were not dealt with in the Commission and in no way have they been a topic of the proceedings, but because of their being submitted by the Pros-ecution recently, I must have the opportunity of dealing with them.
New documents were submitted. I have had the permission to deal with them and I ask the permission to have these documents admitted for that purpose.
THE PRESIDENT: I suppose that is right if they are dealing with new documents.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: There are only 4 affidavits. Is that it?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, only four. Ambassador Abetz dealing with the Jews in France. He explains this incident. He defines his attitude. I should like to submit this affidavit. which has been submitted and marked USSR 143 in dealing with the Styrian Heimatbund (Home League) and affirms that this was not a part of a party organization.
The last affidavit deals with Document EC 68. It deals with the confidential letter of the Baden Landesbauernschaft and with matters which are well-known to the High Tribunal such as the treatment of the Polish workers. 38,000 in number. I gave a much greater number. I believe I was a victim of the picture that I supposedly presented and the report which was presented by Colonel Neave in which he says that there are 50,000 affidavits. Out of 38,000 affidavits certain extracts were dealt with such as the Church question, and the Jewish question. These experts compiled these statements, and sumarized them.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh yes, now you are dealing with number 53.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well now, on pare 3777 of the transcript before the Commissioner that affidavit is fully not out, I mean to say it is fully summarized.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I just want to give an explanation so that a picture can be fathered as to how these summaries were arrived as. However, if the Tribunal does not consider it necessary for me to go into that explanation -
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Servatius, we have got an enormous number of documents in this case and surely to have the same thing done twice over at this stage is unnecessary.
Have you got page 3777 before you?
DR. SERVATIUS: No, I have not.
THE PRESIDENT: As I understand it 53 is a collective summary and report on the affidavits which follow, is that not so?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then, in this transcript of the evidence before the Commission it says that the result consists of the group report by Karl Hederich and of the following individual declarations, Jewish persecutions -that is 54; treatment of foreign civilian labor and prisoners of war -- 55; disassembling of trade unions -- 56; concentration camps by Richard Hueller -57 operational staff Rosenberg by Richard Mueller -- 58 and so on right down the list.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. Then that has been read. However, I did not receive this report. If it is contained therein then, of course, I do not need to submit it now.
THE PRESIDENT: It is already set down in the transcript.
DR. SERVATIUS: At that time the matter was discussed that certain of these main affidavits would be translated and should be submitted and that was the thing I wanted to do now and I also wanted to cite the contents of the various affidavits as they concern themselves with the various points. The first affidavit, 53, only states how the entire thing was done. Then the second one deals with the Jewish question, that is affidavit 54.
THE PRESIDENT: What I am pointing out to you that what you are saying identically is set down in this transcript. What is the point of repeating it for another transcript?
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I do not knew this report and what it covers.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it sets out the contents of 53. 54. 55. 56 and there is Mueller 57.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, is it possible that I receive a copy of this report and in case I find it necessary to make remarks that I be permitted to do so?
THE PRESIDENT: I am told you have got the German of this. It is the transcript of what happened before the Commissioner and your representative Dr. Link, is the man who was doing it. It is on page 3777.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I just missed this because of the quantity of material. Therefore, I should like to refer to it without dealing with the affidavits one by one. one point. There are two theologians who very extensively and comprehensively deal with this matter and this seems to be of great significance to me.
Mr. President, I have concluded my submission of documents. members who participated, I had a statistical report set up yesterday. Perhaps I may submit this for the aid of the Tribunal rather than as a piece of evidence instead of the statistical party book which is in the library of the Prosecution so that one can figure out just what is to fall under the Indictment I should like to submit this as an aid to the Tribunal rather than as a piece of evidence, if I may. It is in the German language.
THE PRESIDENT: Have the Prosecution any objection to the submission of this document?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FIFE: My Lord, of course we have no idea what is in the document at the moment. But, My Lord, I think we shall make no objection to it.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you can look at it and we will have it handed to us later.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: By Lord, if I understood Dr. Servatius correctly it is on the numbers of those who ore to be included on the organizations. Colonel Griffith Jones has prepared an exact statement of these when the Prosecution think are to be included and their numbers, which he proposed to give to the Tribunal at the close of Dr. Servatius' speech which may remove some of the difficulties which Dr. Servatius has in mind. But My Lord, I make no objection to the document going in to assist the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I did not quite follow as to when I was to receive these figures; after my final submission or before then. Of course, I think it would be important if I could knew that in advance.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you will receive the document to which Sir David Maxwell Fyfe was referring to before you make your final submission because after you have dealt with your documents the other representatives of the organizations will have to deal with their documents and their affidavits. We will have it during that time.
DR. SERVATIUS: May I submit this statistical report?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I should like to conclude my statement herewith, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Now which of the organizations shall we take next. I beg your pardon. Yes?
LT. COLONEL GRIFFITH JONES: I do not know whether it would be convenient for the Tribunal if I submitted some particulars of the figures which we were discussing the other day.
THE PRESIDENT: Could you not put in and hand to Dr. Servatius this statistical summary and then deal with the rest of the matter in argument? I understood from Sir David that you have a statistical document showing the number of political leaders whom the Prosecution contend are involved.
Well, Dr. Servatius wants to see that and, therefore, if you wall give him that, that will be all that is necessary, will it not?
LT. COLONEL GRIFFITH JONES: My Lord, yes, except simply to explain what the document is, which will take two minutes. I think it will be of assistance to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: If it will only take two minutes.
LT. COLONEL GRIFFITH JONES: They are figures taken from the organization book. On pare one the Tribunal will see the total numbers set cut of all the political leaders whom the Prosecution are including inthe organizations; the Hoheitstraeger, the staff of the Reichsleiter, the staff of the Gauleiter, the staff of the Kreisleiter. For the information of the Tribunal I have also included the staff of the Ortsgruppenleiter of 340,000. That total is 940,000. You deduct again the Ortsgruppen staff which I excluded and you get your figure of 600,000. officeholders on the Reichsleiter, Gauleiter and Kreisleiter staffs. The Reichsleiter, I think, speaks for itself. The Tribunal perhaps will look at Appendix "C". There it all be seen that the offices on the Gauleiter staff are set out. only say that those show the maximum establishment of the Gau and Kreis staffs and they were not by any means always up to strength so that the figures, the total figure 600,000 is to be the maximum that is possible.
THE PRESIDENT: Now we will deal with the Gestapo.
DR. MERKEL (Counsel for the Gestapo): Mr. President, first of all I should like to have permission to discuss my document book. I have already introduced the various documents with the exception of Gestapo Exhibit Number 31, which I should like to submit at this point. the political police in general. I should like to ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of both these documents and I should like to ask the same with reference to Gestapo Exhibit 3 and 8. They contain the basic laws and directives dealing with the set-up, the development and the aims behind the Gestapo and first of all dealing with Prussia and finally for the entire Reich area.
German police official law dealing with the 24th of June, 1937. I shall read Paragraph 1 from it. This is found on Page 20 of the document book.
"This law pertains to the executive officials of the Security police and the Criminal Investigation Police of the Reich and the communities, the Military Police, and the secret State Police, as well as for other police executive agents of the Security Police (police executive agents)." executive officials had a special position in that they alone were subordinate to the police law, not the other branches, such as, for instance, administrative.
Now, Gestapo Exhibit No. 10 contains the temporary executive decree of this law which we have just mentioned, It delineates the concept of the executive police officials. I quote from Part 1, concerning Paragraph 1 of the law; and this may be found on Page 33 of the document book: "Police executive officials are with the Reich Criminal Investigation police, the Secret State Police, and also with other branches of the Security Police : Criminal Assistants (Kriminalassistenten), Criminal Senior Assistants (Kriminaloberassistenten), Criminal Secretaries, (Kriminalsekretaere), Criminal District Secretaries (Kriminalbezirkssekretaere), Criminal Inspectors (Kriminalinspektoren), Criminal Commissars (Kriminalkommissare), Criminal Counsels (Kriminalraete), Criminal Directors (Kriminaldirektoren), Councillors of the Government and, Criminal Police (Regierungs und Kriminalraete), Senior Councillors of the Government and Criminal police (Oberregierungs and Kriminalraete), Directors of Government Criminal Police Departments (Regierungs und Kriminaldirektoren) and Directors of the Reich Criminal Police (Reichskriminaldirektoren)."
officials of the Gestapo became direct Reich Officials. I quote from Gestapo Exhibit No. 11, Page 36 of the document book, "Article 1. The following are to become direct officials of the Reich:
Officials of the Security police (Gestapo and Criminal Police), but not police officials serving in the State Police Administrations for the Criminal Police." like to have the High Tribunal take official notice of It. It is a copy of the law of the 17th of June, 1936, dealing with the appointment of a chief of the German police in the Reich Ministry of the Interior; and I should like to have the High Tribunal take official notice of Gestapo Exhibit No. 13, which concerns itself with the use of inspectors in the Security Police.
Gestapo Exhibit No. 14 was submitted as USA Exhibit 266 and has been submitted as such already, and it is proved that it was prohibited to the Party to be active in the Gestapo. I should like to quote from Figure 1, second paragraph, which is at page 42 of the first document book.
"I forbid all offices of the Party, its organizations and affiliated associations to undertake investigayions and interrogations in matters which are the business of the Gestapo. All occurrences of a political-police character are to be brought immediately to the knowledge of the competent offices of the Gestapo, as before, without prejudice to their being further reported along Party channels." book, I should like to quote a third paragraph. "I particularly emphasize that all cases of treasonable activity against state or realm coming to the knowledge of the Party are to be reported to the Gestapo without delay. It is in no way a task of the Party to make investigations or inquiries of any kind in the so matters on its own initiative."
THE PRESIDENT : From which page was it that you were reading then?
DR. MERKEL. Page 43, Mr. President, Page 43 of the German document book.
THE PRESIDENT : May I have the herding?
DR. MERKEL : Yes, the heading is "Reporting of Treasonable Activities to the Gestapo", and from that I read the third paragraph, starting with the words : "I particularly emphasize that ..."
THE PRESIDENT : Yes, I sec.
DR. MERKEL : That the taking over of political offices by officials of the gestapo was not welcomed by the Gestapo may be seen from Page 3 of this document, which is Page 44 of the document book, the last paragraph : "since it", that is, the Secret State Police, "is still in the process of organization and the available officials and employees are very much in demand. they are only to take over positions in the Party to the extent that this is compatible with their official duties in the Gestapo.
From Gestapo Exhibit No. 15, which is an excerpt from the Reich administrative law of 1933, I should like to say that the Gestapo could receive complaints. This is the first paragraph, Page 46 of the document book: "Since the Law on the Secret State Police (Geheime Staatspolizei) of the 30th of November, 1933, became effective, orders of the Office of the Secret state Police (Geheimes Staatspolizeiamt) can no longer be contested according to the provisions of the Law on the Administration of Police. The only comedy against them is a complaint to the superior authority. the Gestapo and of the Office of the Gestapo page 3 of this same document, which is Page 48 of the document book.
I shall quote paragraph 2, "In accordance with all this the legal status of the Office of the Secret State Police since the Law of the 3oth of November 1933, became effective is the following : The office is part of a special authoritative organization, the "Secret State Pllice" which forms an independent branch of the Administration of the Prussion State. It hasm like the Secret State Police as a whole, a special field of duties : the management of affairs of the political police." High tribunal take official notice. They deal with the introduction of the laws establishing the Gestapo in non-German areas. Gestapo Exhibit No, 19 deals with the border police as a part of the Gestapo and is the copy of a circular of the Reich and Prussion Ministry of the Interior of the 8th of May, 1937. I shall quote from No. III. This is Page 53 of the document book, "The execution of the police tasks at the frontier is entrusted to the Border Police Branches (Border Police Commissioners office and Border Police Posts)." I shall omit the next sentence. "The Border Police Commissioners" Offices (including the Border Police Posts established by them) are, as before the Border Service Stations in Prussia and Baden , offices for foreign service of the State Police Branches competent for their district."
Gestapo Exhibit No. 19 is a copy of a circular given out by the Chief of the SIPO and Department III of the 30th of June 1944, in which thenunification of the military and political police defense machine is set up. I shall quote from this text, just auote the first three paragraphs, at Page 56 of the document book. I quote :
"The resulte of the transfer of the special department III. Economy existing within the former branches to the agencies of the State Police, is the union of the counter-espionage protection entrusted to the army, and the political police in industry and economy.
"The responsibility for the defense of the armaments industry as well as of all other was and vital plants from esionnage is henceforth the responsibility of the chief of the Security Police and of the Security Service and his subordinate offices of the Secret State Police.
"The carrying out of counter-espionnago departments in plants are now exclusively the task of the Secret State Police, according to the instructions given by the Reich Security Office.
Dealing with other Gestapo Exhibit No. 20, I ask the High Tribunal to take official notice. It is a directive given out by Himmler on the 25th of November 1938, dealing with the are tion of a central office for preliminary registration for police purposes. Through the setting up on this office, it was possible to detail members for service in this branch, even against their will.
Concerning Gestapo Exhibit No. 21, I should like to have hte High Tribunal take official notice of that document as well. It Goals with qualification tests for applicants for service in the Security Police; and the same applies to Gestapo Exhibit No. 22, which is a directive of the 14th of December 1936. It says that candidates for Criminal Commissioners will have to meet the same tests or have the same qualifications as candidates for the regular criminal Police.
Then, concerning Gestapo Exhibit No. 23, I should like to have the High Tribunal take official notice of that document, which is a decree of the 2nd of June, 1937, whuch says that police and gendarmerie officials details for service were detailed for service in that they did not come to the Gestapo voluntarily.
THE PRESIDENT : What you are doing now isn't assisting the Tribunal in the very least. Would it not be better to submit all these documents, that is to say, to put them in, and ask us to take judicial notice of them, which we shall do, because they are decrees, and then to refer to any particular paragraphs in them when you come to make your argument? I say that because this is meaningless to us to read excerpts; and it is confusing to read a number of them without Making any submissions at all about them. When you come to make your argument, you can draw our attention to any particular passage you want in order to explain the arguments, but this is not doing you any good at all.
DR. MERKEL: Yes, Mr. President, 1 have made provisions 19 Aug M LJG Daniels 5-1 for that in my final summation.
However, in my final summation I am trying to be as brief as possible, and I only refer to these documents, on the assumption that I might read them now in the submission of documents. However, if the High Tribunal wish to take judicial notice of these documents, then of course I shall be satisfied.
THE PRESIDENT: It is more informative to our minds than to have it separated between the reading of the documents now and your final argument. If we have to listen to the same sort of thing from all other organizations, why it is beyond human ability to carry all these things in our minds.
Dr. Merkel, if there are any special passages in these decrees or documents which you wish to draw our attention to now, in order that we may read them carefully before you make your speech, well and good; but it is no good going through one after the other like this without making any comment at all. Dc you follow what I mean?
DR. MERKEL: Yes, Mr. President, I quite understand. For that reason I only read you a few brief sentences from the verr, very important ones, and I ask that the High Tribunal take judicial notice of the rest.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know what you call a very few brief ones, but we have had about fifteen or twenty already. That doesn't seem to me to be very few.
DR. MERKEL: Of course, Mr. President, we must take into consideration that we have only three hours at our disposal for the final summation. For that reason it seems suitable to me, first of all, to submit my documentary evidence in such a way so that the documents can be submitted to the High Tribunal. Then, in the final summation, I would refer to it in a summary way. Since this documentary material must be submitted to the High Tribunal in some way or other, at some time or other, we considered it mere suitable to separate the two, to submit the documentary material now, shortly, and then, in our final summary, to deal with an evaluation of these pieces of evidence which 19 Aug M LJG Daniels 5-2 had been submitted briefly.
these documents. In the second, volume of my document book there are but a few documents from which I wish to quote a few brief passages.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on, then.
DR. MERKEL: Gestapo Exhibit number 32, the first one in my document book number 2, shows that the combatting of partisan bands was not the concern of the party or of Himmler, but rather of the Army itself; and I should like to refer to an affidavit in this case deposed by a certain Rode, which has already been submitted as USA document 562.
Gestapo Exhibit No. 33 shows that the orders regarding the execution of Russian prisoners of war in the concentration camps came from the inspector of the concentration camp and not from Amt IV, or Office IV, of the RSHA. execution of protective custody, and I ask that the High Tribuanl take judicial notice of them, as well as No. 37.
I now turn to Gestapo Exhibit No. 38, which is a copy of a letter of the Inspector of the Concentration Camps of the 15th of October, 1936. I quote from figure number 2, at page 101 of my document back:
"Besides the Chief of the German Police, the following are authorized to enter concentration camps:
"a. The Chiefs of the three SS Main Headquarters.
"b. The administrative Chief of the SS.
"c. The chief of RFSS Personnel.
"d. The SS Gruppenfuehrers."
I should like to quote figure 4:
"All other SS members, official commissioners And civilians, desiring to enter promises in which prisoners are ledged or engaged in work, for the purpose of visiting, require my express written authorization."