THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, before the Tribunal voices its decision on the proposed plan of procedure here, does Your Honor still think it is necessary to quote from Article 10, Ordinance No. 7?
THE PRESIDENT: I think we are quite familiar with it, but now it might be to an advantage if you would outline just what you expect to introduce here by way of judicial knowledge.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: During the Prosecution's case in chief thus far certain concentration camps have been brought out in the evidence. They have been brought out in various contexts, including certain defendants in the trial, but the physical nature of those concentration camps, what went on there, and the fates of the people who were sent there have not been brought out in the documents or testimony, except insofar as isolated instances were concerned. Now, particularly with reference to Mauthausen, Flossenberg and Auschwitz, the Prosecution does feel it necessary to call the court's attention to the nature of and activities in those three concentration camps at least.
THE PRESIDENT: May I inquire whether those things sufficiently appear in the judgment itself, or do you want to go to the record?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: They do not appear sufficiently in the judgment itself. We are primarily concerned with the record.
JUDGE BRAND: What portion of Article 10 do you suggest authorizes judicial notice of mere evidence offered in another Tribunal?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: There is, if the Court please, with regard to the record alone, the last clause of Article 9, which is the applicable one, and it reads: "And the records and findings of military or other Tribunals of any united nations."
MR. LaFOLLETTE: We are pointing out, again I am onoy repeating what Mr. Wooleyhan says, there are two things. We ask the Court to take judicial notice of the record of other Tribunals, and we contem plate referring to the page of the transcript, or of the document where these records were made in the IMT record.
Now this judicial notice of the findings in Article 10 are of the findings on the evidence, but the record we may offer refers to judicial notes, and that is what we are seeking to do, and we are relying on the previsions of section 9 -- Article 9 -- of Ordinance 7.
JUDGE BRAND: In your construction, that is based solely on the meaning of the word "records."
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I think "records and findings", yes, sir.
JUDGE BRAND: We are not raising any issue as to "findings".
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Yes, but on the word "records" it has judicial notice as distinguished from "findings", which is binding under Article 10. As to the judicial notice, the record of any Military Tribunal, we believe, is provided for in Ordinance 7.
JUDGE BRAND: As you define the record of, say, a trial, either the Prosecution or the defense could introduce by the method you now suggest for judicial notice any evidence either for the Prosecution, or the defense, which can be found in the testimony of any other case which has been tried by an International Tribunal.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Exactly, provided adequate identification is made so that this Tribunal may ascertain what that record is and where it is, yes.
JUDGE BRAID: I have grave doubts whether the word "record" was in fact meant to include any and all testimony introduced by any and all parties in any or all of these trials.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Perhaps, Your Honor, we can make the point narrower in that we will be perfectly willing to accept construction of the word "record", as to the meaning for our purposes, the judicial notice of only those portions of the transcript in IMT which are quoted from documents which are in evidence before the IMT, and use this procedure that we suggest here as merely an expeditious and quick way of referring again to the documentary evidence which was offered to and accepted by the International Military Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: The Prosecution counsel are, of course, entirely familiar with the well established rule in the States, that testimony in a case does not become part of the record until incorporated into the record by a duly certified bill of exceptions. Now the word "record" as employed in the argument here, seems to have a much broader meaning than provided in that case.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Yes, that is true. I think, however, it must be construed in the context in which the word is used with regard to these previous trials, and concurrent trials. Then you got the word "record" as a very definite meaning, and which means it was introduced into evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: If what you are arguing at this time is sound, it would be equally true that any other Tribunal now sitting would have its record entitled to be accepted in the same portion and effect.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: That is correct. That is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: There is danger. That is one danger.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Yes, but I don't think we really need to worry about the word "record" in that regard, because I think a finding includes a judgment on the language used. I am aware of what is included. A finding is a finding of ultimate facts on the law and upon the evidence in the case, as I see the term. The record is the evidence. So that whatever may be done with the findings, the construction which I am asking for in this case is not effective by our interpretation of the word "record".
THE PRESIDENT: I suggest to you that the word "record" means something in addition to findings, and that the logical thing for it to mean is in the nature of orders made in reference to the law, or procedural matters of that kind, which would go into the record of the Tribunal. It seems to me that it would be terribly unfair to throw open the gates here, and, instead of putting in evidence, to ask the Court to treat as evidence through the medium of judicial notice anything that either party can find was offered as testimony, written or verbal, in any one of these other cases.
MR. LaFOLLTTE: Your Honor means "offer and accepted."
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, as heard by any other Tribunal.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: My answer to that is that there was contemplated, I think, certain modification standards in reference to evidence to which I am accustomed, as are other members of the Tribunal, that this word "record" must also be read in connection with the definite admonition to all of us that the trial is to be conducted expeditiously. I think that has a good deal to do with throwing light upon the meaning of the word "record".
THE PRESIDENT: There is just one word that means more to me than "expeditiously", and that is fair.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I cannot see anything unfair about a rule which offers this same availability to the defense as it does to the Prosecution. I quite agree with Your Honor that "fair" is more necessary than expedition in this trial. We are not asking for one rule for the Prosecution, and another rule for the defense.
THE PRESIDENT: Before the recess there had been no suggestion as to the latter part of Article 9, and we were only thinking of Article 10. As to Article 10 alone, we were and are still satisfied to rule on only the judgment of the International Tribunal, and not with any other Tribunal, which take matters of judicial notice, nevertheless rebuttal, of course, according to the language of Article 10. You injected new thought to our meaning when you referred to Article 9, and the word "records".
Perhaps my statement was a little broad when I said we would not accept the findings of other Tribunals, military or otherwise. I think under the language of Article 9 we would be bound to take the findings of other Tribunals, other than IMT. The troublesome part is the word "records."
"29April 47-M-AK-8-1-Haynes(Hahn)
JUDGE BRAND: May we ask that you make one matter clear. Your request is not limited, as I personally understand it, to the reading of portions of the findings or the statements of the Tribunal? Your offer goes beyond that and refers to an offer or a request that we take judicial notice of certain exhibits as such which were offered and received in evidence?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That is it precisely.
JUDGE BRAND: By the I.M.T.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Precisely.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Exactly.
JUDGE BLAIR: Those exhibits were established by the international judgment specifically?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: They were, and they are designated by number and exhibit number.
JUDGE BRAND: Established-
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Introduced.
JUDGE BRAND: And received.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: And received. Is that what you mean by "established" Your Honor?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: May I make a brief remark. Concerning Articles 9 and 10, I would ask you to compare it. If one shares the view of the Prosecution, the last sentence of Article 10 would be incomprehensible or at least superfluous. If one shares the view of the Prosecution it would be possible, concerning the whole material of the trial of the other trials, to make it irrefutable. In that case, the last sentence of Article 10 would be incomprehensible, because it means that statements, the establishments, the findings of the Courts can be refuted by new evidence. Therefore, I believe that the word "record" in Article 10 can in no way be interpreted in such an extensive way as the Prosecution is doing.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honor please, I don't believe that that argument is legally sound. We are not claiming that this evidence is binding, and consequently, of course, the last sentence of Article 10 remains in full effect. All we are saying is that the record is evidence, not that it constitutes a finding of ultimate fact or guilt. Of course we are not contending that, so that what we are contending is not inconsistent with the last sentence of Article 10.
JUDGE BRAND: But your contention, carried to its ligical conclusion, might result in this situation: You might find an exhibit offered in evidence and received in evidence by the I.M.T. an upon your theory it would be admissible as judicial notice of the facts therein stated, although the findings of the I.M.T. might have been have been that they found the document which had been received in evidence to be incorrect or untrue.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: That is quite true.
JUDGE BRAND: And then you would have us taking judicial knowledge of something that the I.M.T. Had found incorrect in fact.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: No. I ask you to take--Well, that is no different-- To me it is no different, Your Honor than if during the evidence that is introduced in his trial, after it is introduced some of it this Court will reject as untrue; some of it will accept, and when it reaches its conclusion of ultimate fact and law, if we follow back logically, we would say that this Court could not have reached the conclusion that it reached unless it rejected something that was in the record. I do not see that what we are requesting this Court to do in any way involves an inconsistency such as Your Honors have just mentioned.
We are not asking you to be bound by what-
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you a question? How are you proposing to bring those matters of evidence before this Court at this time?
MR. WOOLYHAN: We were proposing to read quotations from certain documents received in evidence before the I.M.T., as stated in the official transcript of the I.M.T.
THE PRESIDENT: You are going to read from those documents, do I understand you to say?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The documents were read by the Prosecution into the record of the I.M.T.
THE PRESIDENT: And you are proposing to read from those same documents before this Tribunal at this time?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: We are, Your Honor, And then-
THE PRESIDENT: Maybe I did not make myself clear I mean introduce the documents in this Court and then read from them.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That would not be judicial notice, Your Honor.
JUDGE BRAND: It would be evidence, and judicial notice isn't evidence in the true sense of the word.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That is precisely right.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Except to the extent that this language makes it. If it doesn't, then, of course, we are wrong. That is all there is to it.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you some other matters that can occupy the time for the remainder of the forenoon?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No, Your Honor, we have not, for the remainder of the morning session.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honor please, we are in this position. We'll have two witnesses in this Court tomorrow, one a Czech. Part of Book 9 might be available this afternoon, but has not been distributed for 24 hours. We have the PS documents of the I.M.T. which we felt we could get in the manner which we have proceed. If the Court feels otherwise, of course, we accept the ruling. The only alternative then that we could offer to occupy the Tribunal's time is these PS documents. They were introduced and accepted in the record of the I.M.T. If the Court and Defense Counsel would feel that they could waive the 24 hour rule and also waive distribution, certain portions of those documents relating to Mauthausen, Flossenberg and Auschwitz could be read from this podium. I don't ask anyone to do it. I am just saying that is the only way we can do it. We are sorry.
JUDGE BRAND: What about Book 8-B.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I'll tell you very frankly about 8-*B. We spent a lot of time on it. It is unverified letters, and I don't think that this Court will accept it under its rules, and I won't quarrel with that ruling. We were mistaken, and we very honestly make confession that we were mistaken, but we had thought, of course, that when we were ordering our books distributed that it would be available at that time. It is our fault, but there is-
THE PRESIDENT: May I make this inquiry. You have said that these documents that were introduced before the I.M.T. are available and the only difficulty at this particular moment is that they wore not submitted to Defense Counsel 24 hours ago.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: More than that, Your Honor. I say they are available in our possession as documents which were introduced, but they have not been translated into German, They were O.S.S. reports-- I beg your pardon.I am informed that they were German captured documents, but I am not adequately informed as to whether or not there are mimeographed copies in German which would permit us to make the distribution which the rules of the Court require. We have to go to the Document Room, and we have to ascertain that. If the supply of German documents has run out, then there will have to be new stencils run, re-mimeographed and put together. I mean, that is not my fault nor the Tribunal's; it is just one of the situations with which we arc confronted. We could read the documents. There would be a complete German transcript available from the translation, but I don't, of course, put the burden on Defense Counsel in order that we may proceed to say that they waive. I simply point out to the Tribunal that that is the situation.
JUDGE BLAIR: Regardless of the fact that you read part of the international judgment into this record here as judicial notice, you would have to go further and show with regard to each of the defendants here how he was connected with that part of it before a conviction could be had, wouldn't you?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: We are far away from that, Your Honor, That is argument. This is a piece of our evidence. That is quite right, and also we are prepared-There is a good deal of difference between the different isolated elements of evidence and final evidence. We argue that from everything we have in the record.
We are prepared to read some from the findings or the judgment of the I.M.T., which is clearly judicial notice We had also, as we made quite clear,felt that we were entitled to bring in the record in the same way. If the Court rules that we can not bring in the record, then we don't bring in the record, but I am sure that the Tribunal will not rule that we can not read the findings We can read some findings. That is the situation.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I take it that by invoking the judicial notice ruling, as set forth in Articles IX and X, that if we yielded to your persuasions that the rule about advance notice and translations would not apply.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I think that is correct; that has been the effort of course of judicial notice. If Your Honors will recall, that was what we did when we brought in certain other proceedings from the Hague Tribunal and others, and Dr. Schilf and I agreed that the reading of that gave a full record, and it was judicial notice of course; the judicial notice rule is not affected by the other rule.
DR. SCHILF, for the Defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg. If the Prosecution uses documents, that is as evidence, which were submitted to the IMT here, if it wishes to introduce these documents here through the channel of judicial notice, then we would seriously suffer if the German translation were not available to us. Therefore, if we are concerned with that point, we would have to ask if the Prosecution wishes to read the documents from the record; it has been said that documents were read into the record of the IMT, and because they now appear in the record, they can new be put forward for judicial notice; and if we are going to be concerned with the documents, we have the right to have twenty--four hours notice, and we further have the right to ask for the translations.
THE PRESIDENT: Speaking for myself, I should like to know just what you expect to prove, what evidence you would offer. This isn't a jury trial, and we will not be prejudiced by learning in advance what you desire to prove.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: In any event the Prosecution will probably be permitted to read certain excerpts from the findings of the IMT; it was our proposal, in addition to that, to read, certain excerpts from the evidence which on their face purport to have been the support and the basis and the reasons for those findings. That, in short, is our position?
THE PRESIDENT: The reason why you are limited at this time is because you don't have the translations of them to submit to opposing counsel; is that true?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If we had at our disposal all the documents that had been admitted in IMT, from which I hope to quote, we would have submitted them as exhibits, as new evidence, subject to linking them up; but we felt that this would be a much more expeditious procedure, and with no prejudice of Defense Counsel, for the reason that the German transcript has every word that we would read; it appears in the German transcript of IMT, one copy of which is now in the interpreter's booth and several other copies which are available in the library, in the same place we get this.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me direct a question, if I may, to Defense Counsel, and that is as to why this availability of those German translations doesn't fully protect you so that you can go ahead without this delay.
DR. GRUBE (Attorney for Defendant Lautz):
May it please the Court, I believe the Defense would suffer a disadvantage even if we did receive the German records very early for the following reason: In the same way as it happened earlier, and as is being done before the IMT too, documents were only read into the record in extracts by the Prosecution, and important passages which interested the Defense were never entered into the record. In many cases the passages which were read into the record were taken out of their context, and not comprehensible unless one has the entire document available. Therefore, I believe that we can demand to have the entire document placed at our disposal.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honors, the answer to that is that if the Defense in their case in chief feel that in any one of the excerpts that we read, there are extenuating circumstances that we didn't read, it is certainly within their power to introduce the entire document.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I think there is one more thing I would like to say on this point, to tell the Court, in order to make our position clear. The basic document was a very large exhibit that contains references concerning concentration camps, evidence of the IMT, that is reports on concentration camps, ten or twelve as I recall. We felt that largely for the purpose of this record, that part of those reports which referred to the camps which are linked in our evidence , namely Auschwitz, Flossenberg, and Mauthausen; that is what we want. Now, in addition, we will prepare a document, because in our opinion that is part of our case, and we want it in this record, but we will here to extract, and then may be have new stencils out, both in English and German, of what we take out of this larger document. It is all right; I just wanted to point out that we felt that we were entitled under article 9 to do this by judicial notice. If we are not, then we will put it in, though it may take a little time to resume the Prosecution's case.
THE PRESIDENT: The character of the evidence introduced relates to concentration camps, as I understand it; is that true?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Entirely so, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: May I inquire at this time how many concentration camps there were in Germany?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I would not like to say, your Honor. I would only like to say that in this case we are primarily concerned with three.
THE PRESIDENT: I am concerned, however, with the number.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I would hesitate to say that except as a matter of evidence. If the Defense Cares to make a statement on that, we have no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Do Defense Counsel desire to make a statement , on that? They are not compelled to answer; I don't want to ask them any questions, but if they are willing to answer, I would be glad to hear the answer.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If your Honors please, the question can't be answered by us. I think there is now a discussion among counsel here; some say there is seventeen; some say there are two hundred; some people say there were five hundred; and some say there were less. As to what constitutes a concentration camp, too, is questionable; I have heard there was one out on the edge of Furth, but I don't know it. There are three of them that we are primarily interested in; what we want to show, Your Honors, is the number of people that died in Mauthausen, Auschwitz, and Flossenberg; how many were beaten up there; how many entered and how many died in that time; that is what that document seeks to prove; that is what is in this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Somewhere I have seen a map of Germany with indications of the location of concentration camps; it may not have been complete, but -
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I mean, I don't know, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I have made the suggestion, but no Defense Counsel have volunteered, and I will not propound the question any further.
JUDGE BRAND: I should like to ask, if Counsel for the Defense care to answer, if a large and voluminous document was offered and received in the IMT trial, and if it gave information concerning many concentration camps, and if the Prosecution only wanted to show what happened in three concentration camps, would Defense Counsel be disposed to object to the admission in evidence of only these portions which relate to the three concentration camps? In other words, would you raise the objection, which you have raised in some other cases, that the entire document, which includes much irrelevant to this case, was not reproduced hero; if Counsel for the Defense would be willing that only the excerpts which relate to the three concentration camps, which are in issue here, should be reproduced, and, I mean, offered in evidence like other documents without objecting on the ground that the entire volume was not reproduced. Then, that would simplify the problem of the Prosecution, and would be perfectly fair to the Defense;
would it not?
DR. KUBOSCHOK (Attorney for Defendants von Ammon and Schlegelberger):
It is natural for the Defense to attach importance to judicial notice. We could, therefore, safely restrict ourselves to material concerning those camps which are being mentioned here, but it is important that material should be submitted from the entire document, and were able to judge whether in their case, on the basis of only extract being read, an objection was necessary or not. The interest of the defendants in this trial may be different from these of the defendants in the IMT, but it is the duty of the Defense Counsel to examine that; for that, he needs the entire document. Naturally, he only needs that document which the prosecution refers to; furthermore, I would ask for an explanation; it did not become quite clear from the German translation as to whether the Prosecution actually, concerning new evidence, in view cf the objections of the Court, whether it will be submitted as evidence or for judicial notice.
I believe that I understood from the German translation that the material is now in effect purely to be submitted in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Is the Court under any misapprehension as to whether or not we offer this as judicial notice. For the benefit of Defense Counsel, we will repeat again it was offered as judicial notice.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal has heard all the argument that would really aid the Court, and I think it would be well to give further thought to this matter. We will, therefore, recess at this time until 1:30 this afternoon, at which time we will finally rule on this matter.
(A recess was then taken until 1330 hours, 29 April 1947).
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 29 April 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Without further argument, I think we may as well settle the matter that we discussed this forenoon once for all. We will take judicial notice of anything that appears in the judgments of the IMT, subject, of course, to rebuttal on new evidence. We interpret the word "record" as found in Article 9 of Ordinance No. 7 more narrowly than the prosecution counsel do, and the record does not include evidence unless that evidence is discussed in the International Tribunal's judgment.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, in line with the ruling of the Tribunal, the prosecution offers for the judicial notice of the Tribunal a few pertinent excerpts from the judgment of the International Military Tribunal referring to concentration camps. I regret that we have not a German transcript, we only have the English, but proceeding on the same ground as heretofore, we feel that defense counsel will not be prejudiced in any way in view of the fact that German transcripts translating the English do exist in the library, and it is a matter of cross-reference to the portions which we read here in English.
The first portion to which we invite the attention of the Tribunal is found on page 16945 of the official English transcript of the judgment. It concerns the criminal activity of the Gestapo, and reads as follows.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. You said 16945? That is a little confusing to my mind. You mean of the printed volume 169?
MR WOOLEYHAN: On my copy of the official transcript, Your Honor, the page number from which I am reading is 16945.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand; that is all right.
MR WOOLEYHAN: "Criminal Activity.
"Originally, one of the primary functions of the Gestapo was the prevention of any political opposition to its Nazi regime, a function which it performed with the assistance of the SD.
The principal weapon used in performing this function was the concentration camp."
Skipping to page 16948 of the judgment, paragraph headed "Conclusion" "The Gestapo and SD were used for purposes which were criminal under the charter involving the persecution and extermination of the Jews, brutalities and killings in concentration camps," and other excesses and brutalities which we will not read.
Skipping to page 16954 of the judgment, under the paragraph headed "Criminal Activities of the SS":
"From 1934 onward, the SS was responsible for the guarding and administration of concentration camps. The evidence leaves no doubt that the consistently brutal treatment of the inmates of concentration camps was carried out as a result of the general policy of the SS, which was that the inmates were racial inferiors to be treated only with contempt. There is evidence that whore manpower considerations permitted, Himmler wanted to rotate guard battalions so that all members of the SS would be instructed as to the proper attitude to take to inferior races. After 1942, when the concentration camps were placed under the control of the WVHA, these concentration camps were used as a source of slave labor.
"An agreement made with the Ministry of Justice on 18 September 1942 provided that antisocial elements who had finished prison sentences were to be delivered to the SS to be worked to death."
Skipping to page 16958 of the judgment, under the paragraph headed "Conclusions" width regard to the SS:
"The SS was utilized for purposes which were criminal under the Charter involving the persecution and extermination of the Jews, brutalities and killings in concentration camps," and other excesses and brutalities which we will not read.
May it please the Court, this morning the Tribunal asked the prosecution a question concerning how many concentration camps we thought were in Europe, that is, within Germany and the occupied territories.
The prosecution did not want to answer that question this morning for at least two reasons, the most important of which probably was that we could not answer it with any degree of accuracy impromptu.
We see now on the wall a map of Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, and other areas, and I wish to explain what this map purports to be. This map was made nearly two years ago for presentation during sessions of the International Military Tribunal; it was in fact so exhibited before that Court. It has also been exhibited before Military Tribunal No. IV very recently. It purports to show, by each red dot and its satellite smaller dots, the principal concentration camps operated by the Nazis both within and outside the Reich. We do not offer it as evidence, nor has it ever been offered as evidence before any court. It has merely been submitted in answer to questions similar to the one posed by this Tribunal by way of information, and we feel it is not prejudicial to the defense, not undue surprise, since they are at liberty either now or later to offer anything in the way of evidence or argument in rebuttal thereto.
We do submit, however, that on that chart is pointed out the location of the concentration camp Mauthausen, the concentration camp Auschwitz, and the concentration camp Flossenbuerg, each designated by a large red dot, surrounded by its satellite subordinate camps. Those were the three camps referred to this morning which, we submit on the face of the record, are linked directly to the evidence already presented in this case with regard to specific concentration camps.
Without saying more, other than to point out furthermore that it will be noted that a number of these concentration camps, particularly Mauthausen which is in Austria, and Auschwitz which is in Poland, are outside of the Reich, we leave the question open as to whether either the Tribunal or the defense have any remarks to make before we remove the chart.
THE PRESIDENT: You spoke of the larger dots and smaller dots. It is difficult at this range of vision to tell which are large and which are small. Would you indicate a few small ones so that I can see the distinction?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: As an example, Your Honor, I show you the large dot which is indicated as being Mauthausen concentration camp. Surrounding this large dot you see satellites of smaller dots, which is to indicate the subordinate concentration camps located nearby and under the administration of the mother camp at Mauthausen. That is found in parallel design throughout the map.
DR. HAENSEL (Counsel for defendant Joel): Because I am also working as defense counsel in the Pohl trial, and therefore I have a special knowledge of the facts, not because it concerns the defendant whom I am defending in this trial particularly, I wanted to say only for the information of the Tribunal that this map, this chart, naturally has to be exaggerated in order to make proper impression. If one looks at the chart one would have to think that all of Germany was at that time a concentration camp, which some who suffered under this maintain was true.
The subject of concentration camps is extremely complicated and is temporarily different at periods of time. Before 1939 there were altogether less than ten concentration camps, and shortly before the collapse there were about 200. The administration between the mother camps and the working or outside camps differentiated between these. The number of inmates increased accordingly from 40 to 60,000 before 1939 to millions towards the end of the war. And all of the difficulties which led to these terrible consequences which we saw in the end films are connected with the collapse of the entire German food economy.