different -- "In accordance with the decree of the Supreme S.A. leadership the ban on taking on newly matriculated students is raised." -- in the same period, the 25th of April be the 5th of May -- "Every student is thereby offered the possibility of joining the S.A. The S.A. service is compulsory, but the joining of the S,A.,becoming a member of it, is left purely to the student himself. He simply is offered the possibility of joining." Tribunal, and I can leave it for a moment by drawing your attention to these two paragraphs. That document will be GB-619. The Munich Decree, of course, is SA-156. And I have a number of short affidavits to put in in rebuttal of the many thousands which have been submitted by the Defense.
Perhaps first, I might draw the Tribunal's attention to these two which Dr. Boehm has asked to be submitted. First of all, to the affidavit of Dr. Staff which is D-946, and I might mention that the only reason that these two affidavits were not going to be submitted by the Prosecution is because they are not actually in the form of affidavits, but a declaration. Some error was made in obtaining them, and they do not show on the face of them that they are affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: Haven't we already admitted them? Sir David said that he didn't object to their admission.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES: I was only going to draw the Tribunal's attention to the one passage, if I might. I think, taking D-946, the second paragraph is the paragraph from which Dr. Boehm probably hopes to receive some assistance. I would draw the Tribunal's attention to the last paragraph which deals with the S.S. The remainder of the document describes the appalling atrocities which were happening in Dachau in and around the year, 1934. In fact, the last paragraph particularly, "As far as the SS proper is concerned -- in contrast to the Waffen SS, the conditions of which I am not in a position to judge -- the pretext of compulsory membership cannot be credited in my opinion."
THE PRESIDENT: The number of this is SA-91 or 92, isn't it?
LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES: 91. I had forgotten that they had been given up. And the second one is the affidavit of Dr. Schuhmacher, D-947, which will be handed up to the Tribunal, SA-92. I think the second half of paragraph number one is probably the paragraph to which Dr. Boehm referred. "That voluntary membership remained customary extensively after 1932, " but he is dealing now with the SA and the SS. "In a great number of cases membership resulted also from direct or indirect pressure or was the result of personal wrong speculations." And then he says that that is so particularly in the case of the Stahlhelm, and that Stahlhelm consisted of a number of persons who were not National Socialists.
I would draw the Tribunal's attention particularly to the last paragraph, Number 4, of that affidavit which deals with Blockleiters and Zellenleiters. They "were the foundation for the whole system of terrorism, including the activity of the Gestapo."
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, this document which is being introduced is a direct indictment against the political leaders. I object to the uses of that document, but for another reason than the one that has been stated up to now. A number of copies of these affidavits have reached me. They are the outcome of an inquiry which has been made. Some of them are being made available, but it is my point of view that if the result of such an inquiry is being utilized, then all answers should be utilized, and it is my opinion that if one hundred questions and questionnaires were put, then there may be arguments in favor of political leaders contained in these affidavits which are not made available, and I beg, therefore, that if the subject, as such, is admitted at all, that all the results of that inquiry be admitted so that a true picture is obtained which might be more useful to me than the testimony given by my members, because these people who have given these leading affidavits are opponents of National Socialism and I must assume that favorable arguments are contained in these affidavits which are not submitted, which may be very valuable with the entire evidence with which I am concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal doesn't think it is right at this stage of the trial to allow this document to be put in against the political lenders, and therefore the document will have to be excluded altogether.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES: That, of course, will apply to the other eight or nine affidavits that the Prosecution has. These affidavits were obtained to rebut the vast mass of material which has been put in in the form of affidavits by all these organizations. In actual fact, I can state that there were no other affidavits, other than the ones that I am proposing to put before the Tribunal, and these two which we were not intending to put in, because, as I say, they were not in the form of an affidavit, but there are no other affidavits that we have obtained and they organizations. They are put in simply in rebuttal of the mass of material which has been presented to the Court on behalf of the defense of these organizations.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you had better offer these so we may see them, We have seen this one, and we know, of course, from what you have told us that it is one which the Prosecution had before and did not propose to offer, but the others may be different.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES: They are all in very much the same form, and of course, Defense Counsel have had copies of them now for nearly a fortnight
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you had better offer them to us and we can look at them.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES: And without referring the Tribunal to any particular passage?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I think you had better offer them and refer to the passage, and we will see whether we will admit them.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES: If your Lordship pleases.
Dr. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, may I add one remark? These affidavits all originate from persons who are today holding high offices of this state. They are probably the most important ones ever submitted until today and I shall now not have an opportunity to investigate what is being said against them or can be said against them in detail now. I should like to be in a position to go into this question, and that, of course, isn't possible for me to do at this moment. I didn't even know whether they were to be introduced or not, and since I have completed my evidence and am ready with my final plea, it makes it difficult for me.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES: Might I say this? Sir David, of course, asked the Tribunal's permission to put these in some days ago. The Tribunal will remember ever since then Defense Counsel have had an opportunity of investigating and seeing these documents and Dr. Servatius says that he had no opportunity to investigate, whatever he meant by that, these documents. The Prosecution has had no kind of opportunity to investigate the three hundred thousand affidavits that have been put in on behalf of the defense.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal considers that they better look at them and see.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, may I draw your attention to a point of mere formality? I haven't get the documents at hand at the moment, but as far as I have been able to see, they are dated after the 7th of May, which was the key date. They were taken after the 7th day. They do not comply with the formalities, either. They were to be taken by our officer, but some of them are only certified before an Advocate, and that, of course, according to the rules passed down wouldn't suffice. I myself haven't been able to introduce any statements at all unless they were certified or sworn before our officer.
COL. GRIFFITH JONES: Half of them were performed before Mr. Marreco of counsel, whom you know. Others, from the north of Germany were performed before local notaries. Some were performed before Mr. Marecco, who is an allied officer and others appear to be sworn before notaries. As I see it, Dr. Boehm has hopes to put in affidavits which were not signed before anyone.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we should see the Documents before we consider the objection.
COL. GRIFFITH JONES: May I hand you first, B-929, which becomes GB - 620. It is an affidavit by Dr. Anton Pfeiffer, Bavarian Minister of State in the State Ministry for Special Tasks.
THE PRESIDENT: When was he minister?
COL. GRIFFITH JONES: In the year 1933 he was Secretary General of the Bavarian People's Party.
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, in order to prevent the type of proceedings that are developing on the occasion of hearing ...
THE PRESIDENT: The type of proceedings which are now going on are the type of proceedings which the Tribunal has just ordered. The Tribunal wishes to see the Documents in order to decide upon them. Go on.
COL. GRIFFITH JONES: Your Lordship, in the affidavit here it says that pressure was brought to bear on certain officials to make them join the party, that is civil servants. He goes on in the latter half of the affidavit to state that he and other people had a knowledge about the atrocities that happened in the cast and the liquidation of the Jews. He states in the center paragraph, "I am not aware that officials who were party members, were threatened with dismissal from the service if they refused to accept a political Party job, like Blockleiter or Zellenleiter. At any rate I never heard of such a case." I don't think it is necessary for me to read any other passages of this affidavit, No. D-929. GB 621. It is an affidavit by the Lord Mayor of the Provincial Capital of Brunswick, in which he describes himself and gives personal data. He then also goes on to describe the activities of the SA from 1921 until 1923 in the first paragraph marked number one.
He then goes on to describe the activities of the SA. In 1933 , he, himself, was removed from his office by the SA. On the next page, he describes how he was led out of the town hall and put into prison by the SA. He states that membership in the SA was absolutely voluntary until 1937 and until 1933 one could assume that many SA members acted in good faith, believing that the SA had a just task for combatting Communism. After the events of March, 1933 there was, in his opinion, no longer any doubt that the SA acted contrary to law, by their participation in the seizure of power by Hitler. He goes on to say how later on the SA distinguished itself in an illegal sense particularly in the persecution of the Jews in 1938.
He deals then with the SS. He says that while membership in the SS was voluntary and the selection of members was severe, membership in the Waffen SS during the war was often compulsory. arrest by the SS and the appalling torture to which he was subjected by members of that organization. He says, "Before I was ill-treated, I pointed out that I was a war cripple to which Sturmfuehrer Meyer replied that in that case the arm (stiff in the elbow joint owing to a grenade wound) would be spared." He was then beaten with hippopotamus-hide whips until he was unconscious, then he was revived with cold water and beaten again.
The next paragraph of page three states, "The organization and the ideology of the SS were aimed so exactly and so pitilessly at eliminating political opponents and so-called racial inferior persons that everyone who joined it was bound to realize its criminal nature." which becomes GB 622. This is an affidavit from Dr. Viktor Fenyes, president of two central committee of former political prisoners of the Province of Hanover. This affidavit deals with the Leadership Corps, particularly the Block and Zellenleiters.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you tell us, before you introduce each one. of these affidavits, where they were taken and before whom?
COL: GRIFFITH JONES: My Lord, I am very much obliged, of course. If the Tribunal will look at No. 938 it states that it was taken before a Notary in Hanover. The previous one states the affidavit was taken on oath before a Notary in Munich.
It is not written on the copy. there was definite pressure brought on people to join the party, pressure by way of threats. That they assisted in the persecution of the Jews and that the Block and Zellenleiters participated, without exception, in the setting on fire of the synagogues in 1938. It then deals with the SA, stating that membership was voluntary. He states that former members of the SA who protest they entered the organization under pressure are not telling the truth, as actually everyone was not admitted into the SA. He then goes on to tell of the SS, but I do not think it is important to read it again.
The next document is an affidavit, which was signed before Mr. Marreco, D 931, which becomes GB 623. This affidavit is from the Secretary General of the Bavarian Peasants' Union in Munich, Dr. Schlogl who was a delegate of the Bavarian Diet at the time of the seizure of power by the Nazis.
Dr. Alpis Schlogl, my Lord, was the victim of an assault by the SA. The affidavit deals with the decision of the court concerning the SA men who perpetrated that assault. That is already before the Tribunal as Document D-936, GB 613 and perhaps the Tribunal will remember that because the decision stated that the dealings of the SA men were only aimed at the well being of the National Socialistic movement for political reasons.
Dr. Schlogl, in his affidavit, describes them is treatment he received. He says in the third paragraph, "Following my complaint, the perpetrators were not punished but pardoned, the ring leader Bernhard was promoted as a reward and, as I have been told now, rose to the rank of Brigadefuehrer." SA and SS were common knowledge and everyone who joined the organizations knew to what use they would be put by the party.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you could just hand them up and not read the documents. Then a decision can be rendered.
COLONEL GRIFFITH JONES: Yes, My Lord. I submit Document B-935, which becomes G.B. 624, which is an affidavit sworn to before Mr. Marreco. It is an affidavit by Albert Rosshaupter, Bavarian Minister of Labor in Munich.
Document D-932, which becomes G.B. 625, is an affidavit also sworn to before Mr. Marreco.
Document D-933, which becomes G.B. 626, is an affidavit by Joseph Ackermann, director of Munich, also sworn to before Mr. Marreco.
Affidavit D-950, which becomes G.B. 627, is by Adolf Fahlbusch and was sworn to before a notary in Hanover.
Perhaps I should say that all the affidavits not taken by Mr. Marreco were taken by the Legal Division of the Control Commission of Germany, or were taken under their auspices. This Legal Division of the Control Commission were asked to take these affidavits and they did so in accordance with the regulations set down by the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that all?
COLONEL GRIFFITH JONES: I have one further affidavit of a somewhat different nature, which shows the credit or the value the Tribunal can place on the affidavits which have been submitted by the defense. It is an affidavit of an SS man, who was in an internment camp in the British zone and he tells of the questionnaires which were filled out at the camp. The questionnaire, which I understand the Tribunal allowed the defense council to submit in these camps. This affidavit, which I shall hand to the Tribunal, is D-973 and becomes G.B. 628. It is an affidavit by Mr. Kurt Ehrhardt. part in their activities and was dismissed from the SS in 1937 because he had a Jewish partner and a Jewish brother-in-law.
THE PRESIDENT: I can get all this from the affidavit, I suppose.
COLONEL GRIFFITH JONES: That affidavit does not show on the copy that it was signed on oath and before whom. My Lord, the original shows it was sworn before Major Hill of the British Delegation.
THE PRESIDENT: Could you tell me when it was Sir David Maxwell Fyfe offered to introduce these affidavits, or intimated he was proposing to do so?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I shall check it during the adjournment I would believe that it was the Friday before last, but, my Lord, it was certainly before I cross-examined the SA witnesses. My Lord, I offered as an alternative either to put the affidavits to the SA witnesses or to put them in after the documents of the defense counsel were presented.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what I wanted to know. That will be in the transcript.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, my Lord. I understand it was accepted and your Lordship asked if there were any objections and there were no objections. I will find it, your Lordship.
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, I recall this very clearly. These affidavits were brought up for discussion by me during the examination of the Witness, Juettner. Upon my raising an objection, the Tribunal stated at the time that if these affidavits were to be presented, then they must be presented then, because I objected saying that I would not be in a position to prove it contrary to the statements contained in the affidavits when my last witness was heard and I would not be in a position to present any other type of evidence. I considered from the decision passed by the Tribunal that the submission of affidavits by the prosecution should not be permitted once I no longer was an a position to submit any other evidence and the Tribunal agreed with me that these affidavits should be submitted when we were taking the evidence or previously.
THE PRESIDENT: We will refer to the transcript to see what happened.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: They were already mentioned before the incident arose. It was in regard to Dr. Hoettl's affidavit that the affidavits were mentioned.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now and will sit again at 2:30.
(THE HEARING RECONVENED AT 1445 hours, 22 August 1946)
THE PRESIDENT: With reference to the first group of documents which were objected to by the Soviet Prosecutor, the Tribunal thinks that, as those documents had been included in the Document Book for the SA after the agreement and the Affidavit 82 has been allowed by the Commission, in spite of the fact that these documents relate to a remote period, they ought to be allowed. They are, therefore, admitted. They are Documents 285, 286, 287, 132 and 82. say to the 10 affidavits which the British prosecution offered in evidence, the Tribunal has reconsidered the shorthand note which shows what Sir David Maxwell Fyfe said on the 9th of August and what was said on the 14th of August and on the 15th of August, and although there was at that time no doubt a suggestion that these documents might be put in, the Tribunal considers that the question still has to be considered whether the documents ought to be admitted as rebuttal. In view of the nature of the documents, the Tribunal thinks that the documents are not proper evidence in rebuttal on the whole, and that therefore they ought to be excluded. That includes all the affidavits with the exception of the affidavit of Kurt Erhardt, which stands in a different position. In view of the nature of the evidence contained in that affidavit, it will be admitted.
22 Aug A LJG 16-1 Saslaw
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, I should like to ask you to lend me your ear but a moment longer. In my presentation of documents, I avoided quoting from my document books but since this morning, the prosecution referred to SA document 156 which is a directive of the schools for higher learning in Munich and put in juxtaposition to another directive given out by the Hochschulamt in Cologne. I should like to refer to the fact that Figure 3 of both of these directives, the same directive of the 7th of February 1934 is mentioned and that when these two documents are put in juxtaposition, it says in each case "For all members of the German student body service in the SA has been made obligatory." In order to make this understandable, on the thing that the prosecution believed to be a contradiction, I believe that when it comes to the directives issued by the schools in Cologne, I should like to quote -
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the true interpretation. We quite understand that on the one hand you are contending that the service in the SA was compulsory and the prosecution are contending the opposite and they are putting in this other document which they say supports their view. It isn't necessary to have an argument about it at this stage.
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, I wanted to add out four more words, four words to be added to the last sentence under Figure 3, "or not to study." Then the prosecutor stated today that document 91----
THE PRESIDENT: Are you saying that there is some misprint in the document or what?
DR. BOEHM: No, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you are simply arguing on the interpretation of the words and I have told you that the Tribunal will consider the interpretation and decide the interpretation for itself.
DR. BOEHM: Very well, Mr. President, but may I mention the next document of which the prosecution has asserted that I submit 22 Aug A LJG 16-2 Saslaw ted it only because of the last paragraph and that is not correct.
The next document, General SA 91, was not submitted by me because of the last paragraph but rather because of the first paragraph. That is the attitude as defined by an Oberlandesgerichtrat in Braunschweig.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. We understand that you rely on the first paragraph and not on the last paragraph.
DR. BOEHM: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you very much.
DR. PELCKMANN: Your Lordship, may it please the Tribunal. Yesterday, on behalf of the SS which I represent, I submitted a condensation of 136,213 affidavits. This compilation I ask not to be confused with a statistical figure of which I said towards the conclusion of the session yesterday afternoon and made the statement that I would submit it without commenting on it. Everything that I mentioned about the testimony and the attitude taken by SA men refers only to the one hundred thirty-six thousand affidavits which contain their own wording and which are actual affidavits. The statistical matter which I mentioned toward the and of yesterday's session, this statistical material is based on a questionnaire and is not to be confused with these 136,000 affidavits which I used. This questionnaire, however; was not asked for my me; this questionnaire and the replies made in answer to it, were not evaluated by me. I merely submitted a statistical report so that all the material which I had received should be disposed of. To get rid of it, this questionnaire is, as I have said, not asked for by me, and the interrogatory mentioned by Erhardt was not asked for by me. It is well known to the high Tribunal that the defense has changed its position internally.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we quite understand that it was not quite asked for by you. We accept that.
DR. PELCKMANN: But I should like to clarify matters absolute. by starting that the assertion made by Mr. Erhardt does not refer to those 136,000 affidavits but rather to the answering of a 22 Aug A LJG 16-3 Saslaw questionnaire.
The statistical matters which I only announced with three words yesterday and which may be found with the General Secretary, I should like to withdraw as a piece of evidence expressly. I do not put any value on this statistical material.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pelckmann, you are going to make a speech in a few days. Isn't that a matter with which you will deal then? You will have the opportunity of criticizing Erhardt's affidavit. This isn't the time to do it.
DR. PELCKMANN: Mr. President, I believe it is my duty to deal with this affidavit which has been submitted by the prosecution even though the presentation of evidence has been concluded.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Pelckmann, I just told you that it is not your duty and you will be able to deal with it when you make your speech and therefore the Tribunal doesn't desire to hear any more about it.
DR. PELCKMANN: In order to reply to this affidavit, in order to present evidence to the contrary, I should like to have two witnesses from this camp summoned before the High Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: If you want to make an application, you must make it in writing. Now, Dr. Servatius.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I ask to make two application on behalf of the Soviet Prosecution. The first one is concerned with the discussion of the appendix of the morning session of April 23, 1946, and of the evening session of April 19th, 1946.
THE PRESIDENT: April what?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: April 23, Mr. President; the morning session, afternoon session and the evening session. The discussion about the appendix to the report of the government of the Polish Republic. I speak about the instruction of the Department of Propaganda in Poland. The witness Buehler declared that he doubted the authenticity of this document and based himself on certain expressions which seemed to him not quite German but alien to the spirit of the German language. By investigating this episode, it appears that the witness had not the German original 22 Aug A LJG 16-4 Saslaw but the appendix which had been translated from German into Polish and them from Polish into English and then from English back into German which, of course, caused a certain chronological mix up.
As for as I was informed, Dr. Seidl knows this document and has not opposed against excluding this thought from the minutes because it was caused by the defects of translation. All the necessary documents concerning the application of this have been before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not certain but I thought we had already dealt with that point, in view of Dr. Seidl withdrawing his objection to that document end perhaps you can find that out afterwards whether we have already dealt with it. There was certainly a document presented to us from Dr. Seidl in which he said, that having checked up on the particular document with which he was dealing, that he was now convinced that it was right.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President. As far as I know, Dr. Seidl does not object against striking out this part from the record because the mix up has been caused by a fractious translation.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean that your application is to strike out Buehler's evidence?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: On the part concerning this document.
THE PRESIDENT: We Will consider your application, Colonel Smirnov.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: The second application consists of the following -- In the report of the Polish Government submitted to the tribunal, in many cases there are not figures of the losses suffered by Poland us a result of the war. This was caused by the fact that at the time when the report was made, these losses had not been calculated and I would like to ask the Tribunal to admit an official memorandum of the Presidium of the ministers in Poland, which contains all the figures, the couple to figures of the losses suffered by Poland during the second World War. The text of this document has been translated into all four languages;
22 Aug A LJG 16-5 Saslaw that is to say, into English, Russian, French and German. That is my second application to the Tribunal. I have no more applications to make, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you suggesting that this is evidence in rebuttal?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: No, Mr. President, it was caused by the inexact translation. This is a document complementing the Polish report, complementing the report of the Polish government, by exact figures of the losses suffered by Poland during the war. It contains data on the military losses of Poland during the second World War in manpower and in material losses. That is a document which doesn't contest anything but complementing the after documents, giving more precise data.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel precise, the document is dated the 29th of January 1946, and now you are being asked to offer this document in evidence at the end of August 1946, at the very end of this trial.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Mr. President, this document was given to the Soviet Delegation very late and we needed some time for the translation of this document into four languages and you received it very late.
THE PRESIDENT: I wasn't suggesting that you were in any way to blame, Colonel Smirnov. The Tribunal thinks that this document can't be put in at this late stage, the document which appears to have been made a long time ago and though it may have been received by you recently, it isn't proper that it should be admitted at this stage.
I submit this document, Mr. President, exclusively for the reason that I consider that the data contained in this document gives an exact image of the looses suffered by the Polish Republic, and that was the reason why I submitted this application to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: That may very well be, Colonel Smirnov, but the reason the Tribunal rejects it, it is submitted at such a late stage where it is impossible for the Tribunal to go into the facts which are alleged in it or give the defendants an opportunity of contradicting it. We will consider the other matters you have drawn our attention to.
DR. NELTE: Defense counsel Nelte. Mr. President, since Dr. Servatius, my colleague, is about to give his final plea, I believe I may assume that the presentation of evidence against the organizations are to be considered concluded. Now, I shall like to ask the High Tribunal when the actual time will come for the taking care of these applications for evidence which still have to be taken care of, things which are still outstanding. This, of course, is to the individual defendants who, in the course of the proceeding against the organizations, have put forth applications for affidavits or applications of affidavits. Can this be done in this moment, or, Mr. President, when shall it be done?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, the Tribunal understands that you have got some evidence which you have already applied for, which you want to offer. You have it all ready, is that right?
DR. NELTE: Yes, Mr. President, I have already submitted these applications. This application was submitted to the High Tribunal on the 9th of August. In my case, we are concerned with the matter as to just when the three affidavits of mine can be introduced here.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got the evidence now?
DR. NELTE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Nelte, to think that you might offer these affidavits now unless they are objected to by the Prosecution.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: There is no objection as far as I know. There is certainly none from Mr. Dodd and myself. I haven't heard from any of my colleagues, but I haven't heard of any objection.
THE PRESIDENT: You may offer them now. With reference to the other defendants, they will --
DR. DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I beg your pardon, there is no objection from either one.
THE PRESIDENT: With reference to the other defendants, counsel will understand that if they have any fresh evidence arising out of the evidence offered by the counsel for the organizations, they must offer that evidence during the course of the speeches for the organizations or immediately at the end of the speeches for the organizations; and that after that has been done, no further evidence can be offered. We will take the offering of your evidence now.
DR. NELTE: These affidavits, however, have not been translated since I only asked to have them translated after I had checked with the prosecution and got their approval. May I submit -
THE PRESIDENT: You are suggesting that we postpone hearing the affidavits until we get the translations?
DR. NELTE: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Sauter on behalf of the Defendant Von Schirach. Mr. President, I still have to submit two interrogatories which were granted me by the High Tribunal, and which have been received in the meantime by me, which I have submitted in due course. One is an Interrogatory with the number 137, Document Book Von Schirach 137, an interrogatory by a certain Guenther Kauffmann who was active in the staff of the defendant von Schirach with the Hitler Youth. This interrogatory in the main deals with the attitude taken by von Schirach to the question of war, his attitude to foreign policy, has attitude dealing with the treatment of Eastern peoples, and his attitude in the Jewish question, and finally, his attitude with reference to propaganda abroad. This interrogatory shall have the number 137 in the document book von Schirach.
The next interrogatory shall receive the number 138, von Schirach. It is a Russian interrogatory deposed by witness Ida Vasseaux, I repeat, Ida Vasseaux, who, in the meantime, has been interrogated once more from this interrogatory. I shall use only two sentences to be found on pages 4 and 5 which I have marked in red in the margin. This interrogatory I referred to shall receive the number von Schirach 138.
on the 11th of July, 1946. I submitted to the High Tribunal the original of a newspaper "Rhein Neckar Zeitung" of the 6th of July, 1946, together with a supplementary document for the purpose of proving that in the matter of Schirach that the witness Lauterbacher, who was heard before the court, in the meantime has been adjudged free by an English High Court, in the matter where a certain Mr. Kremer had been accused that the inmates of a penitentiary at Hammen had been decreased by him. This newspaper in the original was submitted on the 11th of July 1946. It shall have the Exhibit number von Schirach 130, I repeat, 138.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, that matter has been raised so many times for Mr. von Schirach that I would like to make the record clear. The time that I used that paper that was in our hands for the purpose of cross examining the witness Lauterbacher, the Tribunal ruled that the matter should not be submitted, or would not be accepted in evidence, and so it never has become evidence before this Tribunal. I pressed for it at the time, I am frank to say, but the Tribunal very briefly, as the later events revealed, refused to have it submitted in evidence. If Dr. Sauter takes pleasure in talking about it once in a while, I have no objection to it, but it doesn't help this court very much, and it doesn't seen to do very much good to constantly bring it up.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, this newspaper article which I submitted on the 11th of July bears the date of the 6th of July, 1946, 6th day of the Seventh month of the year. That is a period of time after the witness Lauterbacher was interrogated. Therefore, when Lauterbacher was examined, of course, this material could not have been taken into account, but, however, as far as the judging of the witness Lauterbacher is concerned, it might be important to the High Tribunal to remember that just Mr. Dodd at that time was the one who confronted Lauterbacher with this matter of the penitentiary at Hammen. Lauterbacher disputed this under oath, but the witness, by the name of Kremer, asserted to it his affidavit. This witness Kremer has been sentenced in the meantime, but the witness Lauterbacher has been set free. And I believe that this fact is of special importance to the High Tribunal when we consider the credibility, the reliability of the witness Lauterbacher.
MR. DODD: I will withdraw my objection. If Dr. Sauter wants to prove that he wasn't hangman, I have no objection to it. I don't suppose it is very important. I won't object to it if he wants to put it in that he wasn't poisoning some people and hung somebody. Von Schirach rejected the document. Now, Dr. Sauter wants to prove that he wasn't anyway. I don't suppose we should object to it.
THE PRESIDENT: He just wants to show that Lauterbacher was freed by some -
MR. DODD: He was freed of the charge I raised against him here. Dr. Sauter is not content with that, he wants to prove it over again. He wants to prove that he wasn't a hangman and not a poisoner. We won't object to that.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, of course, I do not wish, to prove that Mr. Lauterbacher is not a hangman, and up until now, the Prosecution has not in all seriousness been able to contend that. What I want to prove is merely that the witness produced by the Prosecution is Dr. Kremer, that he was the one who had no credibility, and that he did not tell the truth, and that in the meantime this has been determined by an English curt, this question of credibility on one hand, and by Dr. Kremer in his affidavit on the other hand of the witness Lauterbacher who was heard here. That to me would seen to be important.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you want to put in? A newspaper article
DR. SAUTER: The newspaper has the name --I have already submitted it -"Rhein Necker Zeitung", R-h-e-i-n N-e-c-k-a-r- Z-e-i-t-u-n-g, of the 6th of July 1946. I submitted this to the High Tribunal on the 11th of July 1916 in due order. Mr. President, I think that will be all I should like to ask as far as evidence is concerned. Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: We will consider it. Now, Dr. Servatius.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, the English translation which has been completed this morning, and it is quite possible that they are ready now. I am not certain on that point. I have the German text before me, and I gave a copy to the interpreter.
Mr. President, may it please the Tribunal, the Prosecution has proposed to declare the "Corps of the Political Leaders" as criminal.
Of what is this collective group of persons being accused? against the church as well as the dissolution of the trade unions; the incitement for the lynching of flyers who had made emergency Landings, the mistreating of foreigners; the arrest of political opponents and methods of their surveillance and being spied upon. to be determined. The accusation is to this effect, that the "Carps of Political leaders" have collectively committed the deeds mentioned for the unleashing of a war of aggression or that they had banded together in order to commit the crimes of war which have been mentioned. do not concern themselves with these motives or which as individual deeds do not belong to the common plan of the conspiracy are not included in this accusation.