but I'm very tired today because I had a bad heart attack last night -the Czechs, the Poles, Bulgarians, the Roumanians, the Swiss, and the Creeks. In other words, a total of sixteen nations. I don't believe that in Germany we used Portuguese or Spaniards or Swedes or Swiss. None of them worked in Germany. Then, as far as I know, there were no Roumanians working here either. In other words, it's one of those passages where the defendant says more than the truth.
I have no further questions to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal may remove the witness.
DR. BERGOLD: May it please your Honors, I have a few exhibits which I would like to submit; and I ask the Secretary General, if I may, to distribute the English copies to the Court. I hope that Mr. Denney also received the English copies. However, the distribution is not in my hands. I have no objection to their being offered, your Honor. I received none of these; and I received none of the last batch being offered.
I would like to submit Exhibit Number 51, an excerpt from the Nurnberger Nachrichten of the 5th of March, 1947. That is the third year of publication, Number 18, page 3. On the basis of an Associated Press report, the following thing is being said:
"On the basis of statements made by five German women on March 1st, German female Wehrmacht Auxiliaries who had returned from captivity in Russia, representatives of the German church told the public that 20,000 German women are in Russian camps. Those five who returned out of hundreds of women who were in Russia are mines or foundries themselves said they had been released because of illness."
The remaining part is not interesting at all.
I am submitting this because according to my opinion it proves how Soviet Russia interprets the directives with respect to treatment of prisoners of war between Russia and Germany.
I would then like to submit Exhibit Number 52, which is an affidavit of Herr Schirmer. It reads as follows:
"I, Albin Schirmer, born on the 25th of August, 1892, in Bamberg, postal address Nurnberg, Furtherstrasse 58, my attention having been drawn to the fact that I will be punished if I give a false affidavit.
I declare on the basis of this affidavit that my statement is the truth and is to be used as evidence before the Military Tribunal Number 2 in the Palace of Justice, Nurnberg, Germany.
"Since 1929 I worked at the Nurnberg Hercules Works GMBH, and I also worked there during the entire war as a workshop master or foreman. The necessary workers were requested by the firm at the labor office. The labor office preferred the firm to use French prisoners of war or Free French and Free Czech laborers. These free foreign laborers, who also worked on Luftwaffe orders, were on the same basis, or were just as good as the German workers in every respect.
"The greatest part of them lived in furnished rooms. Some of them lived in camps because it was much cheaper there. Working hours and payment food coupons, and the additional worker's coupons were the same as with ever German. Their freedom to move about was the same as that of the Germans. For example, they could visit theatres, movies, cafes, German families; and the same applied to talking to German girls, which, however, did not apply to prisoners of war. The sanitary facilities of the firm were good and were at the disposal of both German and foreign workers. The prisoners of war has a certain time to take showers, while the free foreign workers could take showers with the Germans. The free French workers were allowed to correspond freely with France; and they also spent their leaves there.
"I know of only two cases in which free French workers did not return from their leave in France. Many French prisoners of war reported voluntarily as free laborers in order to avail themselves of the various privileges. The prisoners of war also asked for beer every day. During the airraids the free foreign workers volunteered for difficult work which they wouldn't have done if they hadn't been treated properly. After the arrival of the American troops the mass of the French workers said good-bye to me very kindly and shook hands with me, wishing me the very best of luck.
"The Ukrainian laborers, female workers, also, according to their own statements, were well-off.
"(Signed) Albin Schirmer. Thus is to testify that this above signature is proper and was witnessed by Dr. Werner Milch. (Signed) Dr. Werner Milch, assistant defense counsel before Military Tribunal Number 2."
DR. BERGOLD: I would like to submit now Exhibit No. 54. I already submitted No. 53 yesterday. This is the affidavit of Frau Mathilde Kayser, "I, Dr. Mathilde Kayser, born Hunnius at Hagen-Westphalia.
Now resident in Hagen-Westphalen, In der Welle 34, has been cautioned that I will be liable to punishment if I make a false affidavit. I declare under oath that my state ment is true, and was made in order to present evidence before the Military Tribunal No. 2, at the Palace of Justice, Nurnberg, Germany. My husband's comrades including Dankwart Graf. v. Arnim and Dr. Hellmuth Freiherr von Maltzahn, who live in Hagen-Westphalen, In der Welle 34, have given the identical account of the death of my husband, 1st Lieutenant of the Reserve, Dr. Jur. Wolfang Kayser.
"On 27 August 1944, my husband and several comrades were captured in Paris by the French. The German soldiers were marched away together with their hands raised. Without any obvious reasons an armed French civilian suddenly stopped out from the crowd standing in the street, and fired a shot from his pistol at close range, which hit my husband in the left temple so that he fell dead immediately. The French neither arrested the Frenchman, nor did they make any investigation whatsoever. The German comrades bent down over the dying man. They were driven off with blows from rifle butts. The various information of the comrades about the death through the Red Cross was never forwarded to me. I received the information about his death only on 1 April 1946, after the release of eye witnesses from American and English captivity. I still know nothing about the location of his grave, nor have I received any official communication. Signed. Dr. Mathilde Kayser. The above signature of Dr. Mathilde Kayser Hagen-Westphalen, In der Welle 34, made before the undersigned, is hereby certified and witnessed by me. Hagen, 9 February 1947, Signature, Dr. Werner Milch. Assistant Defense Counsel before Military Tribunal No. 2".
Now, may it please Your Honor, I don't wish to accuse anybody, be it far from me, to say that the French Nation had anything to do with it. I only want to say that there are certain acts committed in excitement without a motive of revenge amongst millions of people which the war had led to fight against each other, and that there are certain acts which are not very pleasant, without one being able to charge or accuse the government, or the military superiors, or to make the entire people responsible.
Now I would like to introduce Exhibit No. 56, an affidavit of Dr. Rolf Funzengruber, which reads as follows:
"I, Dr. Rolf Punzengruber, born on 19 December 1900, Schwarzenbach Kaernten, stateless, a witness at the Place of Justice in Nurnberg, have been informed that I make myself liable with punishment if I make a false affidavit. I declare on oath that my testimony is true, and was made in order to present evidence before the Military Tribunal No. 2, at the Palace of Justice, Nurnberg, Germany. I was a prisoner of the Gestapo from '41 to '43. I was a concentration camp inmate at Dachau for the greater part of this time I was detailed to the concentration camp as a prisoner to do chemical work for Dr. Rascher. During all of this time the name of Milch was never mentioned. Rancher was morally inferior, had a greed for money, and was inclined to lie and used to exaggeration, to ambiguous expressions. He was false and a psychopathic individual. Signed. Dr. Rolf Punzengruber. The above signature at the Place of Justice, Nurnberg, has been made in the presence of Dr. Friedrich Bergold, Attorney at law, and hereby certified witnessed by me on 8 March 1947. Signature Dr. Friedrich Bergold, counsel for defense, Military Tribunal No. 2."
Now I am through with my presentation, may it please Your Honor, and in this whole document book I have not shown the charge put at least of the Speer contradiction with the past exhibits which had been submitted here.
These charges could not be mimeographed as is customary because it is too large. It will be photostated and then submitted to you in the English translation, that is, as a photostatic copy. I beg you to have patience. Besides that, Your Honor, there are quite a number of requests as I already mentioned yesterday, which I sent out through the Secretary General, showing that the alterations in the verbatim record to contain very serious mistakes; these are mainly very serious mistakes; I am very worried about this matter. Then these records in English do not only contain stenotype mistakes of the stenotypes, which can be understood, but also mistakes or misunderstandings by the interpreters, which can also be understood. However, if these records are submitted to you, you are liable to draw false conclusions. I don't know how this should be changed. The requests for alterations have been submitted by me, and that was only part of the material which I was able to look through as I am busy all the time, and it is not very easy for us Germans when we do not speak English well, as is the case with me, as I myself did not learn English during my youth; it is not my language because I was taught Greek and Latin and then it is rather difficult to carry out such a comparison. However, this matter must be cleared up somehow, because the records are the basis for your judgment. The requests are under way, and so far I have heard nothing about their fate. I have only heard that for certain technical reasons they have to go through quite a number of processes, and they are being checked up now. As the information center was only at my disposal, for my requests, it is my opinion also that quite serious and distorting mistakes are in the records. Therefore, I would like to ask this Tribunal to take care of this matter and to think it over and to give it their kind assistance, which has been given to me so many times, and I have every confidence to tell this to the Tribunal in every respect. That is all I have to say.
MR. DENNEY: If Your Honors please, I have here a teletype cable which was received from the Provost Marshal General of the United States Army. I have not as yet been able to get any copy made and I am sure Dr. Bergold will not mind, in view of the misfortunes he has had recently with his exhibits. However, I shall give him one as soon as I get it translated. It is from the War Department:
"20 March 1947, 0232Z. Office of Chief Counsel. Reference your radio March OCC ML dated 110800Z, following affidavit prepared by General Bryan, the Prevost Marshal General. Blackshear. Bryan being duly sworn deposes and says: That he is a Brigadier General in US Army serving as Provost Mrshal General. That from 17 December 42 until 45 he was Assistant Provost Marshal General. That from 3 December 45 to 6 December 1945 he was acting as Provost Marshal General. That from 7 December 45 to date he has been The Provost Marshal General. That during the period of the war the Office of the Provost Marshal General functioned as the staff agency of the Commanding General, Army Service Forces, and carried out the responsibility of the Commanding General, Army Service Forces, in all matters pertaining to enemy prisoners of war. That among these responsibilities were:
"A. Supervision and execution of War Department policy to make effective the provisions of the Geneva Convention of 1929, reference to the treatment of prisoners of war.
"B. Formulation of necessary rules and regulations reference War Department responsibility in control of prisoners of war. That the Office of the Provost Marshal General had jurisdiction over Prisoners of War Division, and the operations section of teletype Prisoners of War Division. That in order to implement the provisions of the Geneva Convention of '29 and to provide War Department personnel and others concerned with information concerning basic plans and policies of the War Department reference prisoners of war, War Department Technical Manual 19-500, entitled 'Enemy Prisoners of War', was published by order of the Secretary of War for information and guidance of all concerned. That further in accord with the Geneva Convention and with Technical Manual 19-500, and with specific reference to the work of German prisoners of war within the continental limits of the United States:
"Chapter 5, Section 3, Technical Manual 19-500 states:
"'1. No prisoner of war nay be employed at labors for which he is physically unfit.
"'2. Labor furnished by prisoners of war shall have no direct relation with war operations. It is especially prohibited for manufacturing and transporting arms or munitions of any kind, or for transporting material intended for combatant units.'
"Officers from my office, and who reported directly to me, inspected the camps and labor projects of German prisoners of war. The inspections of thest officers, together with my own inspections, did not reveal violations of the above quoted provisions."
"The inspections of these officers, together with my own inspections, did not reveal violations of the above quoted previsions. To the best of my knowledge and belief, I would have known of such violations had they taken place.
"That the words 'installations' and 'military installations' as used in War Department publications or reports concerning the utilication of German prisoners of war meant only posts, camps, stations, and offices. Such words had no reference to war factories or other places of manufacturing arms or munitions of any kind.
"That wherever the words 'installations' and 'military installations' were used in connection with the later of German prisoners of war, they were not to be defined or used in such a manner as to negate or circumvent the provisions contained in Technical Manual 19-500 against using prisoners cf war in violation cf the Geneva Convention.
"That to the best of my knowledge and belief the labor of German prisoners of war was used only in types of labor permitted by the Geneva Convention."
If Your Honors please, we would like to mark this as Exhibit Number 160. I shall furnish the Court with copies of this this afternoon, I trust.
At this time I should like to make a blanket offer of all those exhibits which were offered for Identification. I believe, Your Honor, it began with 126.
THE PRESIDENT: 126, yes.
MR. DENNEY: That would be exhibit 126 through Exhibit 159, all of which have been heretofore marked for identification, which are now offered in evidence.
I should like at this time to ask the Court to judicially notice the -
DR. BERGOLD: (Interposing) Could Mr. Denney be kind enough to tell me what the affidavits are according to their contents, in a few words? I have no knowledge of these affidavits here.
MR. DENNEY: I am not talking about affidavits, Dr. Bergold. I am talking about exhibits which have been submitted and marked for identification. You have seen all of them.
DR. BERGOLD: Oh, I see, It is a misunderstanding. I thought they were called affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: These are the same exhibits that you used to cross examine.
DR. BERGOLD: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: In accordance with the Chief of Counsel's motion, offered exhibits Number 126 through 159 will be received in evidence and incorporated in the record.
MR. DENNEY: Do you propose to give us copies later of the cable which you just read?
MR. DENNEY: Yes, Your Honor. It is being copied now. I just haven't been able to get it copied or translated up to now. That will be Exhibit 160.
I'd also like to ask the Court at this time to judicially notice the opinion of the International Military Tribunal and to give me leave to quote from it in summation. There are three short passages with reference to the Schmundt record which I should like to read into the record.
THE PRESIDENT: Passages from the judgment of the International Military Tribunal?
MR. DENNEY: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal under the Ordinance takes judicial notice of that, and it is already in the record by reference.
MR. DENNEY: Your Honors feel it will not be necessary to read this?
THE PRESIDENT: You may use it in your summation because it is already by operation of the Ordinance, a part of this record.
MR. DENNEY: And Your Honors feel it is not necessary at this time to read any part of it in?
THE PRESIDENT: Exactly.
MR. DENNEY: We are in a little quandary over your effort to incorporate part of the judgment of the IMT trial. Do you propose to offer findings of fact made in that judgment as binding upon us?
MR. DENNEY: YES, Your Honors, I just wanted to cite the part of the ****2349*** record where they discussed the Schmundt record of the meeting of 23 May 1939.
THE PRESIDENT: In that discussion, did they make findings of fact?
MR. DENNEY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps, then , if you expect that to be part of the proof-- and undoubtedly you do -- it ought to be read into the record.
MR. DENNEY: If Your Honor pleases.
If Your Honor pleases, this is from pare 1** of the Judgment cf the International Military Tribunal, which is being quoted from the official text in the English language, published in book form at Numberg in 1947:
"The Planning of Aggression: The evidence from captured documents has revealed that Hitler held four secret meetings to which the Tribunal proposes to make special reference because of the light they shed upon the question of the common plan and an aggressive war.
"These meetin ;s took place en $ November 1937, 23 May 1939, 22 ..uaust 1939, and 23 November 1939. At these meetings important declarations were made by Hitler as to his purposes which are quite unmistakable in their terms. The documents which record what took place at these meetings have been subjected to some criticism at the hands of defending counsel. Their essential authenticity is not denied, but it is said, for example, that they do not propose to be verbatim transcripts of the speeches they record; that the document deal with the meeting of 5 November 1937 is dated five days after the meeting had taken place, and that the two documents dealing with the meeting of 22 August 1939 differ from one another and are unsigned.
"Making the fullest allowance for criticism of this kind, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the documents are documents of the highest value and that their authenticity and substantial truth are established. They are obviously careful records of the events they describe, and they have been preserved as such in the archives of the German Government, from whose custody they were captured. Such documents could never be dismissed as inventions nor even as inaccurate or distorted. They plainly record events which actually took place."
They again refer to the document:
"On 23 May 1939 a meeting was held in Hitler's study.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: The page?
MR. DENNEY: Page 198, sir.
"On 23 May 1939 a meeting was held in Hitler's study in the new Reich Chancellery in Berlin. Hitler announced his decision to attack Poland and gave his reasons and discussed the effect the decision might have on other countries. In point of time, this was the second of the important meetings to which reference has already been made, and in order to appreciate the full significance of what was said and done, it is necessary to state shortly some of the main events in the history of German-Polish relations."
Then, on Page 200, it was four weeks after making this speech, that Hitler on May 23, 1939, held the important military conference to which reference has already been made. Among the persons present were the defendants Goering, Raeder and Keitel. The adjutant on duty that day was Lieutenant Colonel Schmundt, and he made a record of what happened, certifying it with his signature as a correct record. The purpose of the meeting was to enable Hitler to inform the heads of the armed forces and their staffs of his view on the political situation and the future action after analyzing the political situation, and in view of tire course of events since 1933 Hitler announced his decision to attack Poland. He admitted the quarrel with Poland over Danzig was not the reason for this attack, but the necessity for Germany to enlarge her living space and secure her food supply. He said, "The solution of problems demands courage. The principle by which one evades solving the problem by adapting to one's self the circumstances is inadmissible. The circumstances must rather be adapted to needs. This is impossible without invasion of foreign states or attacks upon foreign property." Later in an additional statement he added, "There is therefore no question of sparing Poland. We are left with the decision to attack Poland at the first suitable opportunity. We cannot expect a repetition of the Czech affair. There will be war. Our task is to isolate Poland. The success of the isolation will be decisive. The isolation of Poland is a matter of skilful politics". Lieutenant Colonel Schmundt's record of the meeting reveals that Hitler fully realized the possibility of Great Britain and France coming to Poland's assistance. If therefore the isolation of Poland could not be achieved, Hitler was of the opinion that Germany should attack Great Britain and France first or at any rate should concentrate primarily on the war in the west in order to defeat Great Britain and France quickly or at least destroy their effectiveness. Nevertheless Hitler stressed that war with England and France would be a life and death struggle which might last a long time, and preparations must be made accordingly. That last appears on Pages 200 and 201, if Your Honors please.
If your Honors please, I believe initially I have already offered the findings with reference to the power and authority of the Central Planning, and I shall check that this noon to make sure that all the parts which are applicable are in the record, and if necessary then I can supplement what is there after luncheon.
THE PRESIDENT: I believe it is all there Mr. Denney, now.
MR. DENNEY: As I recall it I believe I have.
DR. BERGOLD: May it please this Tribunal, in connection with those things just read now by Mr. Denney, I would like to remind this Tribunal of the fact that not so long ago we already had a discussion about this fact if in these proceedings any more evidence could be submitted against the sins of the International Tribunal. I believe that in this hall I am the only one who had the honor to be directly present at the Internartional Tribunal. At the time I declared to this Tribunal here that the International Military Tribunal omitted a series of evidence, or rather did not listen to a series of evidence I submitted. In this case several witnesses were examined by me, Schniewindt, Engel, Raeder.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me interrupt you. This is not offered as considered binding upon this Tribunal. Under the terms of the ordinance this is part of the matter to be considered by this Court, but any other evidence, such as that you are now mentioning, will also receive due consideration, so don't be alarmed that we are prejudging on the basis that the International Military Tribunal forces us to.
DR. BERGOLD: Thank you.
MR. DENNEY: Thank you. We now offer as Exhibit 161 an affidavit by Walter Napp. If Your Honors recall he was the man who testified before Mr. Justice Beals' Tribunal. His testimony was read in here, and he was also called by Dr. Bergold, presented solely with reference to when a crematorium as far as this inmate's knowledge was concerned, was first erected at Dachau.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, Mr. Denney, you have handed us a transcript of the proceedings before the Military Tribunal, but you didn't mention if you wish it to be in the record.
MR. DENNEY: Yes, Your Honors, I am sorry. Have you already marked that?
DR. BERGOLD: I have to object to the introduction of this affidavit because of two reasons. Firstly, the Witness Napp was already here, and the witness testified in this Tribunal, and Mr. Denney had the opportunity to examine him. If Mr. Denney would have directed the questions then to Napp then I would have been able to bring here counter evidence with the examination of Obergruppenfuehrer Karl Wolff. However, due to the formal proceedings, this is now made impossible unless I have leave to call Wolff again, but this would lead to a trial that would never end, and I am of the opinion, therefore, that this affidavit should not be admitted in this particular case, because Wolff was examined after Napp, and at that time everything could have been cleared.
MR. DENNEY: It just happens that the prisoner who was in Dachau can say that there was a crematorium there in 1940 testified before Obergruppenfuchrer Wolff. I didn't know what his witness Wolff was going to say. I didn't call Napp. I read in his testimony, and Dr. Bergold called him to cross-examine him. Now, if it presents any difficulties to your Honors why --
DR. BERGOLD: I have learned during recourse of my activity, before those Military Tribunals, that generally speaking, such affidavit's should not be submitted afterwards. I can also remember an objection which Mr. Denney made, namely with reference to an affidavit by Richter. At the time it was not discussed any further because it was not regarded relevant by the judges as far as I remember. The affidavit was not submitted by me as far as I recall. However, here an affidavit is being submitted that has more importance because this witness, Walter Napp, only speaks of hearsay in this evidence with reference to Wolff. He does not even state from his own knowledge. This makes my evidence more difficult.
MR. DENNEY: I don't know when hearsay has been inadmissible in this Tribunal. We have certainly had a lot of it.
THE PRESIDENT: Well let's try to salvage some of the fundamental rules of evidence, and one seems to be it is not permitted to make a collateral attack on an immaterial matter upon the testimony of a witness.
This is intended, to impeach the Witness Wolff, is it not?
MR. DENNEY: Yes, your Honor. I will be glad to withdraw it.
THE PRESIDENT: We will be glad to exclude it. Mr. Denney, will you explain to us about this transcript?
MR. DENNEY: Yes, this is a partial transcript from the testimony of the Witness Wuerfler called before Mr. Justice Beals' Court. Wuerfler was Chief of Staff to Hippke, and all this is offered for is to show that Wuerfler testified before that Tribunal. We are asking the court to judicially notice his testimony, that Wuerfler stated, on Page 3135 in answer to a question, "A few moments ago you mentioned that you met Dr. Rascher during the course of planning or preparing such a meeting at the Secretary of State's office; that is Secretary of State Milch, is it not?
"A Yes, Secretary of State Milch." And in the second answer thereafter the time is established as September 1942 and the witness says in that connection, "Well, the meeting should have taken place, and I shall picture the event as it was. That was in September 1942. With the 1st of September I was transferred to the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service. Since my successor had to be trained, and since at that time Generalstabarzt Hippke had to go on leave, I was periodically still active in the Luftwaffe Inspectorate. From this time I remember that I was suddenly called away from my work because of a telephone call. I don't know who called me. I was to report to the Secretary of States for the purpose of a discussion. This discussion did not emanate from the Medical Inspectorate, but was ordered by the Secretary of State. I went there by car, that is from my agency in the Aviation Ministry, and in the corridor before the Office of the Secretary of State I met a few of my acquaintances, and some people I didn't know, and among the people I know I think Dr. Romberg was present."
The next question, "Dr. Rascher was there also? "A I wanted to say Dr. Romberg.
"Q. Dr. Rascher and Dr. Romberg together?
"A. No, I don't know Dr. Rascher, I don't know, I asked what was this about, and I learned that a certain Dr. Rascher was to make a report. No further details were given to me. The beginning of that meeting was postponed since the State Secretary didn't appear when he was expected. Since I was taken out of my work, my double work, I became very impatient and I asked Dr. Rascher, whom I hadn't known before, for the information of what this whole thing was about. Dr. Rascher refused to give me any information, and he said that he had a special order by the Secretary of State. Because of the fact a younger medical officer refused to give me that information, I was very angry and left this group, and I said something of the nature, "If you have any secrets deal with them yourself."
Upon that I returned to my office.
DR. BERGOLD: May it please your Honors, according to my opinion the question must be decided upon basically. Mr. Denney from time to time submits reports from Military Tribunal No. 1, namely statements made by witnesses for which I was not a defense counsel myself, in which I was not present myself, and during which I can't develop the interests of my clients. Now, had I been present at that session, then, for instance, I would have asked the witness, or I would have been able to ask the witness how he knew that this meeting had been ordered by the State Secretary, as I know it could have been, or he would have had to give information and he didn't know it, and this was only one of his deductions. Furthermore, I would have been able to put before him if it is correct that Dr. Rascher spoke of a special deputy of the Secretary of State, or if he discussed the point that an order for secret meetings was received from Himmler, because all the witnesses who have appeared here so far have confirmed that the order to keep secret everything that was said had been given by Himmler, and Rascher referred to this secrecy order to Hippke. This, gentlemen, means if you accept this exhibit that I have to ask that the witness Wuerfler, who is outside of Nurnberg now, be brought back to Nurnberg so that I can question him on these various points, because this is of importance, if he really knew that Milch had ordered the meeting to take place, and it is also important to know if he did not refer, if he was not known with reference to this special order and if Rascher had not spoken of Himmler as Reichsfuehrer SS.
Your Honors, a trial is being carried on upstairs. There is constant difficulty that I have no opportunity to be present up there to guard my client's interest. They are introducting and many times they were talking about the admissibility of experiments which would be important for my case. I have no possibility to go up there. I am just one single man, and I am not given the possibility to be at both places at the came time.
Therefore I would like to request that this be withdrawn or that the Tribunal permit me to call the Witness Wuerfler to Nurnberg. I shall find out where he lives, and then we will just have to wait for him.
THE PRESIDENT: This seems to be much ado about nothing. Doesn't this exhibit show that Milch was not there, that they were all impatient? This exhibit indicates that Milch was not present, and the most incriminating thing, if it can be said to be that, in it, is that Milch called a certain meeting. This was the meeting at which the picture was to be shown, is it not?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, that is correct. However, your Honors, may I add one thing. You stated it is much ado about nothing. However, I have toe much respect for the wisdom of my opponent, that I have to take it that he is not submitting this affidavit for nothing, and therefore I have to object to it.
MR. DENNEY: In order that Dr. Bergold may not be confused I will withdraw the offer.
THE PRESIDENT: I was right, it is much ado about nothing.
MR. DENNEY: Just so the record will be straight, it is a matter of which the Court could take judicial notice, being part of the transcript of another Military Tribunal.
If your Honors will recall, I questioned the Witness Brandt, about 1971-PS, which was in evidence at the International Military Tribunal, and at that time I did not have copies of it to offer. I believe you will recall, Dr. Bergold, it was a letter from Himmler to Rascher of 13 April 1942, followed by a telegram from Rascher to Himmler in October, and then followed by a teletype from Brandt to Rascher in October. It was the question of Himmler's first instructions about the people who were to be pardoned, and then Rascher writes Himmler and says he wants to know whether if under Paragraph 3 prisoners in Dachau condemned to death who overcome tests which endanger their lives they should be pardoned, and then Brandt writes to Rascher and says please inform Rascher regarding the teletyped request that the decree of the Reichsfuehrer requesting the pardon of experimental subjects does not apply to Poles and Russians. Do you remember that?
We offer this as Exhibit 162. I trust I can get that number on something. 161, I guess it is. I will settle for one less. Your Honors, and I don't think the entire exhibit has ever been read so I will just read it into the record now, the first being a letter from Himmler to Rascher dated 13 April 1942. "Dear Dr. Rascher, I want to answer your letter with which you forwarded to me your report.
"The latest discoveries in connection with your research have especially interested me. May I request of you the following.
"1. These experiments should be repeated with men condemned to death.
"2. I would like Dr. Fahrenkamp to take part in these experiments.
"3. Those experiments should above all be evaluated for the purpose of seeing whether it is not possible, through this long functioning of the heart, to bring such people back to life. Should such an experiment of bringing back to life succeed, then it is to be understood that the person condemned to death will be commuted to life-long imprisonment in a concentration camp.
"Please keep me informed of further progress of the experiments.
"Friendly greetings and Hail Hitler!" Yours signed Himmler.
Then a telegram from Rascher to Himmler "Will you please clarify the following case with the Reichsfuehrer SS as soon as possible.