Lastly, as Prosecution's Exhibit Number 20, I offer Document Number NO-1929, being the affidavit of the defendant Horst Klein, to be found at page 97 of the Document Book. Klein joined the SS in 1933 and was employed by the Society for Sponsoring and maintaining German Cultural Monuments, which was under the leadership of the defendant Pohl. He continued with the WVHA, becoming Chief of Office W-VIII. In 1944 defendant Klein was relieved of his duties when he was arrested on the order of the defendant Pohl.
MR. MC HANEY: Before the Tribunal adjourns I would like for the record to show what the court, what we all understand, and that is that when a document is offered by one of the attorneys for the prosecution and receives a number, that it is automatically admitted and made a part of the record unless there is a seasonable objection by one of the defense counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: So that there will be no misunderstanding, Prosecution's Exhibits 1 to 20, both inclusive, will be admitted in evidence.
The Tribunal will recess until tomorrow morning at 0930.
(The Tribunal recessed until 0930 hours, 9 April 1947.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal II in the matter of the United States of America, against Oswald Pohl, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 9 April 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Toms, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: All persons in the court room will please take their seats.
The Honorable, the judges of military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal 2 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
MR. HIGGINS: If your Honors please, I would like to continue at this time with the prosecution's proof. Document Book No. 2, dealing with the organization of the WVHA is broken down into two parts. Part 1 treats of the organizations before the establishment of the WVHA, namely administrative and Economic Main Office and the Office for Budgets and Buildings. Carrying on from this point, part 2 commences with the establishment of the Economics and Administrative Main Office in 1942, which organization took over the functions of the above named two offices. Mr. McHaney in his opening statement traced the developments of the predecessor of the WVHA, and dealt at length with the positions held by the defendants in these several organizations. In his opening statement he outlined as well the duties discharged by the defendants in these organizations. In presenting, therefore, these documents making up Indictment No. 2, it is felt that further explanations of this point is unnecessary. I would like, therefore, at this time to introduce prosecution's Exhibit No. 21, Document NO-1451. This letter is the Reichsfuehrer SS Order dated 20 April 1939 raising the Administrative Office to the status of a main office. The new office is to be called the Administrative and Economic Main Office. The Chief of this office will at the same time be Chief of the Main Office of the Budgets and Buildings in the Reich Ministry of the Interior.
Prosecution's Exhibit No. 22, this document NO-542.
DR. SEIDL (Attorney for Defendant Pohl): May it please the court, I object to the admissibility of Document NO-542 as an exhibit. That Document 542 is a very large document; in the German book it has 39 pages. From this document it cannot be seen who is the author of it. It has not any letter heading -- the document -- nor is the document signed. The document does not show who is the author, when it was setput down -- and it does not give any indication which would justify regarding it as an official document. I looked at the original myself. It is identical with the copies contained in the document books. The difference between this document and other exhibits becomes clear if you compare it to another document which is also contained in the document book and which deals with the same subject. The prosecution has already pointed out that Document Book 2 is broken down into two parts. The second part of that book begins with Document No. 495. There is another chart in the document book, on page 66, that is outlining a chart of the organization of the WVHA. Unlike the Document NO-542, this chart of an organization is signed by Oswald Pohl himself.
Court No. 11- Case No. IV That organization chart shows quite clearly who the author is, that is to say, Reichsfuehrer-SS.
It is dated 19 January 1942, and shows by itself that it is an official document. -11 these conditions do not apply to Document NO 542, therefore, it is not an admissable document, Apart from that, it cannot be seen how much probative value it has in this trial against Oswald Pohl. I therefore suggest, for the above mentioned reasons, that this document not be admitted in evidence against him.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is that there is no showing of authenticity of the document, nor what its origin is. There is no showing that it could not have been written yesterday, right in this building, for example, or that it could have been written by some one without the knowledge of the contents.
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, I think this question has arisen in other cases. The objection has often been raised that a particular document which is offered is not signed or that the origin of the document is not clear upon the face of the document itself. However, if I am correctly informed, these objections have been uniformly overruled for the reason that the origin is known insofar as it is a captured German document. Quite clearly, there is no possibility, as suggested by the Tribunal, that it was written by any one here. The authentication in the folder of the exhibit is a certification stating that this document was delivered from berlin Document Center. If the Clerk will pass over the original exhibit, you will find that each exhibit folder contains a certification.
THE PRESIDENT: That does not appear on our document.
MR. McHANEY: I think the only question is whether or not Court No. II - Case No. IV the document itself has probative value because the authentication of the document in this case is precisely the same as the authentication of any other document offered.
It is a captured German document.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: What is the name of the counsel who made the objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Doctor Seidl.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Dr. Seidl, did the Tribunal understand you to say there is another document which gives the plan of organization that was signed by the Defendant Pohl?
DR. SEIDL: Yes. That is so.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: How does that differ from this document in the plan of organization?
DR. SEIDL: It is Document NO. 495. It is contained in the document book of the Prosecution. I am afraid I do not have the English copy with me. In the German Document Book, it is on Page 66.
MAJOR HATFIELD: It is in Document Book Number 2, Page 56.
DR. SEIDL: It is on page 56 of the English Document Book. That document states in the lefthand corner "Reichsfuehrer-SS." It also has a date and shows where it comes from, Berlin, January, 1942. It is also signed by the Defendant, Oswald Pohl, himself.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: That is not the question, Doctor. The question is how does the contents of that document which you admit was signed by the Defendant, differ from the document offered by the Prosecution in its context?
DR. SEIDL: The contents are different. For instance, the heading reads, "Official Use Only." That, in itself, shows that the document is official. As for the other document, NO 542, it appears to be a document which probably was Court No. II - Case No. IV thrown out by a private person.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: We understand that, Doctor, but the contents of the plan, as signed by the defendant, does differ from the document offered by the Prosecution? Or is it identical?
DR. SEIDL: The Document 542 was compared by me with the plan signed by Oswald Pohl, but I have not examined it yet. My objection is not as to the material contents. My objection is directed against the documents submitted by Prosecution. I do not think any of them should be admitted by the court. And I am of the opinion, that a document which does not show when and where it was written and has no signature, cannot be admitted as evidence, even if it has been captured by Allied Forces. It is not only the document's admissibility which I am concerned with. The question is whether the document has any probative value at all. The question is how much material value is there to the first document? In my opinion, no document should be admitted which is relevant for the case of the Defendant as the origin of the document is doubtful. It should have no value at all.
THE PRESIDENT: The origin of this document is not doubtfull. It is certified to have been found in the German archives and is a part of the captured official records. Does that not authenticate it, and make it genuine?
DR. SEIDL: May it please the Court: I do not doubt that the Document was captured as such. I merely doubt that the document, as such, does not contain anything which would be sufficient for its identification. It may well be that the document was drawn up by a private person, that it was captured somewhere which had nothing to do with the WVHA, and for that reason, this document has no probative Court No. II - Case No. IV value for the case of this defendant.
Therefore, it should not be regarded as admissible.
THE PRESIDENT: But it was not captured somewhere. It was captured in the official German Archives.
DR. SEIDL: May it please the Court, the Prosecution and the Allied troops captured hundreds of tons of documents, but I am of the opinion that question whether the document was captured or not, does not say anything as to whether it is admissible as evidence. It is my opinion that a document can only be admitted into evidence if in itself, it fulfills all the conditions which are necessary normally in order to be able to identify a document. It should show at least where it comes from, from what office it comes, who wrote it, where it was written, and all the other conditions should be clear.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal determines that this exhibit is admissible. Its value as proof may be diminished or lessened by reason of the fact that it is not signed or dated or for other reasons, but the mere fact alone that it is a part of the German Archives, a part of the Archives of the SS, and was found in the office of the SS, makes it admissible. How much weight it shall have, how much it proves, is another matter. That rests entirely with the Tribunal. If it is possible to show that it is of no value because of its lack of signature or date, you may show that, but is admissible for whatever it is worth in its present condition.
MR. HIGGENS: Document NO 452 deals with the tasks, organizations and financing of the enterprises operated by Office 3 of the Administrative and Economic Main Office.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you mispoke, counsel, in giving the number, I think you said "452" and I think you meant Court No. II - Case No. IV "542."
MR. HIGGENS: Thank you very much, 452. It stated the purpose of this survey is to point out the achievements accomplished and to disclose the mistakes made. Suggestions for improvements are contained in this report. This report is significant in this case insofar as it reveals the extent to which Concentration Camp Labor was employed in the enterprises operated under the jurisdiction of the Administrative and Economic Main Office. The enterprises discusses in this report are listed on Page 2 in the Document Book. Mr. Robbins, in a delivery of a portion of the opening statement quoted, at length, from this document. It is felt, therefore, that further comment would be repetitious.
I would like to introduce Prosecution Exhibit Number 2, being Document NO 1045. His report dated 6 May 1940, sets out the table of organization of Division 3-A of the Administrative and Economic Main Office.
The defendants Mummenthey and Bobermin were by this letter appointed deputy chiefs of this division. In addition Defendant Memmemthey held the position of Chief of Main Department 3-A, German Earth and Stone Works, while Bobermin was Chief of the Main Department 3-A-4, The East German Brick Yards Limited. The Defendant Volk was Bobermin's deputy.
I want to introduce Prosecution's Exhibit NO-019(a), rather Exhibit 24, Document No. 019(a). This letter from the Reichsfuehrer SS, dated December, 1939, is addressed to Gruppenfuehrer Hildebrandt, and shows among other things the influential position held by Pohl in concentration camp matters as early as 1939. Himmler in wording his letter, Document Book Page 33, states: "Concentration camps existing at present are placed by me, with immediate effect, under the inspectorate of concentration camps in charge of which is at present SS Oberfuehrer Gluecks. The supervision of the economic matters of these institutions and their application to work is the responsibility of SS Gruppenfuehrer Pohl."
I should like to introduce Prosecution Exhibit No. 25, being Document No. 019(b). Gluecks' letter to the Reichsfuehrer SS Personal Staff, dated 16, December 1939 concerns the submission of a draft order for the establishment of prisoners' camps organized during the war. The purpose of this document is that it serves as a background document for exhibits to be subsequently introduced which disclose Pohl's concern with the converting of such prisoners' camps to state concentration camps.
I would like to introduce Prosecution Exhibit No. 26, being Document NO-019(c). This letter of January 1940 from Oberfuehrer Gluecks, the inspectorate of concentration camps, to the Reichsfuehrer SS reveals the active part taken by the Defendant Pohl in his capacity as Chief of the Main Office, Budget and Buildings, in the transforming of the prisoners' camp Stutthof into a concentration camp.
Gluecks writes that this defendant Pohl would welcome the prisoners' camp Stutthof and its places of work being taken over as a state concentration camp.
I should like to introduce Prosecution Exhibit No. 27, being Document NO-019(d). This letter from the Personal Staff of the Reichsfuehrer SS, addressed to Gluecks, is dated 5 February 1940 and requests information as to whether Pohl agrees to the place of work at Grenzdorf. Here again Pohl's opinion and advice in matters concerning prisoner labor is solicited. The date again is significant, 5 February 1940. These matters transpired prior to the establishment of the WVHA.
I should like to introduce Prosecution Exhibit No. 28, being Document NO-019(e). In reply to the previously introduced document, NO-019(d) Gluecks writes on 8 February 1940 that Pohl agrees to the place of work at Grenzdorf. The close cooperation between Gluecks as inspector of concentration camps and the Defendant Pohl in his dual capacity as Chief of the Administrative and Economic Main Office and the Main Office Budget and Buildings is clearly shown through this series of letters dealing with the prisoners' camp Stutthof and its labor camps.
I should like to introduce Prosecution Exhibit No. 29, being Document NO-034, Gluecks' letter to Himmler, Dated 21 February 1940 is a report of an inspection trip made to determine the practicability of converting certain prisoner labor and transient camps into concentration camps. In reporting that Auschwitz will be suitable as a concentration camp, Gluecks states that a detailed report on this camp was submitted to Defendant Pohl among others.
In concluding his report on Page 40 Gluecks writes, "A detailed report was submitted to the Reichfuehrer SS concerning the taking possession of the Camp Stutthof near Danzig as a state concentration camp. SS-Gruppenfuehrer Pohl and SS-GruppenFuehrer Heydrich expressed themselves in favor of taking possession. I submitted to the SS-Gruppenfuehrer Pohl the documents of the camps under the jurisdiction of the Higher SS and Police Leader Warthe and Rhine which I do not have to inspect, with the request, to inform me whether he is interested in these camps. After having seen the reports I am of the opinion that these camps are unsuitable as concentration camps."
On the basis of documents such as these it is difficult to deny the active part taken by Defendant Pohl and his Main Offices in affairs concerned with the transforming of these camps to concentration camps.
I should like at this time to present Prosecution Exhibit No. 30, being Document No. 2147. This document consists of reports submitted by Kammler, Maurer, the Defendant Volk and others to Pohl on 9 January 1942 concerning again the details of the taking over of the concentration camp Stutthof. This report deals at great length with the problems of just how and by what means this camp and its places of work are to be acquired. The chief importance of this report to the Prosecution lies in the fact that the organizations most deeply involved here are the Administrative and Economic Main Office and the Main Office, Budget and Buildings.
I should like to introduce Prosecution Exhibit 31, being Document NO-2150.
Based upon recommendations submitted by his assistants in the two main offices under him, Pohl in his letter to Hildebrandt, dated 17 January 1942, informs the latter that he has ordered that the concentration Camp Stutthof be acquired. A construction plan is to be set up for the enlargement of this concentration camp and its places of work.
I should like to introduce Prosecution Exhibit 32, being Document NO2151. If your Honor please, this document was not available at the time the document books were assembled. It is NO-2151. It should be contained in the supplemental part to this document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we have it here.
DR. SEIDL (for Oswald Pohl): May it please the Court, the document mentioned just now is not contained in our document book, nor have we been given the supplement so far. I would therefore suggest that the admission of this document into evidence be suspended until the Prosecution has given the Defense a copy of their document.
THE PRESIDENT: The document has been offered in evidence, but will not be received until a German translation had been furnished. Then the Court will hear any objections which you may have to it.
DR. SEIDL: Thank you very much.
MR. DIGGINS: The document, NO-2151, is a letter dated 4 February 1942. Pohl informs Himmler that he has taken over Stutthof as a concentration camp. Provisions are being made to guarantee sufficient accommodations for the economic plants. A building plan has been drawn up which will assure the greatest possible utilization of the property on hand. This report, in concluding the series of letters on the taking over of the Concentration Camp Stutthof, is a complete admission of the complicity of the Defendant Pohl and the offices he headed in concentration camp affairs prior to the placing of the inspectorate of concentration camps under his jurisdiction in the WVHA.
I should like to introduce Prosecution Exhibit 33, being Document NO-620-
DR. SEIDL: May it please the Court, this document likewise is not contained in our document book. I would therefore ask once again to admit the document only on condition that later on objections may be made.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this document NO-620, A, B, C and D?
MR. DIGGINS: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: I have a German copy here that Dr. Seidl may have. It is of no use to me. Dr. Seidl; (Document handed by the President to Dr. Seidl.)
DR. SEIDL: Thank you.
MR. McHANEY: If it please the Tribunal, I think we should not give away all of these German copies, because we are furnishing the English translation only of Part A. Part A shows what was in fact the WVHA prior to March, 1942, and the Tribunal will recall that I described that as being a combination of the main office, buildings and budget, and the main office, administrative and economic. In April, 1939 it became so-called administrative office or Verwaltungs und Wirtschaftshauptamt. It was made into a main office, the administrative and economic main office, what we call the WVHA. At the same time, also, it was amalgamated with the office, budget and buildings. Part A shows that organization. And it existed from April 1939 until March, 1942, when the WVHA was formed. We have translated only part A of the chart, because B, C and D show for the most part merely industries operated in concentration camps by the WVHA and consequently they really don't need to be translated. For instance, you see a word in German, Granitwerke, and Flossenburg, Mauthausen, Gross-Rosen. That need not be translated. They had one in each of the places.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the document I just so generously relinquished some value to the Tribunal?
MR. McHANEY: I think possibly the Tribunal should retain it and we will see that a translation is furnished. I see that one of the other Defense Counsel also has a copy here.
DR. SEIDL: May it please your Honor, I just saw that in the other document. I will therefore ask one of my colleagues to give me one of their copies.
And may I therefore hand back the copy given me by the Tribunal? (Document handed to the President.)
MR. DIGGINS: I should like to introduce Prosecution Exhibit 34, which is Document NO-7111. This is the table of organization of Office I in the main office, Budget and Buildings.
I should like to introduce Prosecution Exhibit 35, being document NO-1299. This document is dated 26 May 1941, and from the Defendant Hohberg to Pohl, suggesting the reorganization of Amt III-A of the Administrative and Economic Main Office. Because of the increasing sphere of work in this office, it is recommended that the main department, III-A-4, be embodied in the main department, Staff East. Defendant Boberman is recommended for the position of the chief of this main department. It is stated that the Defendant Volk will head Liaison between the chief of the Administrative and Economic Main Office and the head of the Main Department, Staff East.
I should like to introduce at this time Prosecution Exhibit 36, which is Document NO-2672. This chart is in the basic information book. The photostat was made available at a later date.
It is a chart of the WVHA resembling in its major aspects the chart which is on display here in the courtroom. It is the table of organization of the WVHA existing at a time subsequent to the incorporation of the inspectorate of concentration camps, as Amtsgruppe D.
DR. SEIDL: May it please the Court, the organizational chart which the Prosecution intended to submit has not been supplied to us so far. It is not contained in our document book. There is a chart in our document book but that is numbered NO-111, and, therefore, I suggest that this chart should not be admitted into evidence until the Defense have been given a copy of the chart.
MR. DIGGINS: If Your Honors please, this chart was provided to the Defense Counsel in the basic information book which is in their possession, and has been for some time.
THE PRESIDENT: You will find it in the other book not in the document book, but in this small book.
DR. SEIDL: We have not been given that organizational chart; it is not contained in the book which we were given by the Prosecution.
MR. MC HANEY: All I know is that I have received it in German myself. I know it has been distributed. It should be in the Defense Information Center. If it isn't, why there has been some mistake made; or if it is there, it is possible that these gentlemen did not pick it up. It is the chart signed by Oswald Pohl himself only a week or so ago. It was appended to each copy of the Basic Information Brief which we submitted to the Tribunal and also to the Defense Information Center before the opening speech. We saw no occasion to repeat the same document in the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, do you have this book and I am showing you the Basic Information on the SS and WVHA - a small book? Does each counsel have this?
DR. SEIDL: May it please the Court, this volume we have not been given yet, and I am informed by my colleagues that this basic document book has not been submitted to the other Defense Counsel; and this morning I asked in the Information Center whether new document books were there, and we were told that no new documents had reached there yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will withhold the admission of this exhibit until we straighten this out and find out what has happened to the German translation of this Basic Information Book. It has been translated and it is somewhere. Now, let us find out where it is and then there won't be any problem.
MR. DIGGINS: I should like to present Prosecution Exhibit No. 36-37, rather. The Document NO-45. This document is dated 19 January 1942, and consists of the table of organization of the newly established Economic and Administrative Main Office, together with a cover letter by Pohl. The Economic and Administrative Main Office is to take over the functions of Main Office Budget and Buildings, and the Administrative and Economic Main Office. Defendant Frank is appointed Deputy Chief of the WVHA and Chief of Division A; Georg Loerner becomes Chief of Division B; Pohl, in addition to being Chief of the WVHA, is also Chief of Division W. I would like to introduce Prosecution Exhibit No. 38, being Document NO-111, which consists of a chart setting out in fuller detail than the previous one the table of organization of the WVHA. I should like to introduce Prosecution Exhibit No. 39, being document 1063 (F) PS. This document is a circular letter addressed to all offices of the Security Police and SD, dated 30 May 1942, and informing these offices of the incorporation of the inspectorate of concentration camps as of third March 1942 into the WVHA as Amtsgruppe D.I should like to introduce Prosecution Exhibit No. 40, being Document R-129. Subsequent to the attachment of the inspectorate of concentration camps to the WVHA, defendant Pohl, on 30 April 1942, submitted his report on the concentration camps under his jurisdiction to the Reichsfuehrer SS.
This report reveals fully the power in authority wielded by Pohl in concentration camp affairs. An appendage addressed to all camp commanders and others sets out the regulations to be followed in the employment of camp laborers. This document - important as it is was quoted at great length in the opening statement, and it is believed that further comments on it are unnecessary. I should like to introduce Prosecution Exhibit No. 41, being NO-504. It consists of Pohl's letter of 11 May 1942 to the Reichsfuehrer SS, reporting on negotiations carried out with the Reichsminister of Finance, and is concerned primarily with the budget of the Waffen SS. Defendant Pohl writes, not without a little pride, that the Reichsminister of Finance expressed special satisfaction concerning the reorganization of the WVHA, and recognizes this main office as the highest Reich administrative department of the RH-SS. Budget negotiations were conducted on behalf of the Waffen SS by defendants Frank and Georg Loerner, and one Dr. Kos.
I should like now to introduce Prosecution Exhibit No. 42, NO-719. By this letter, Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler acknowledges defendant Pohl's report of 28 April 1942; it being document R-129, previously introduced into evidence.
This letter concerns the incorporation of the inspectorate of concentration camps into the WVHA. Himmler states that he is in substantial agreement with Pohl and makes suggestions concerning the re-examination of custody orders, as well as suggesting that camp commanders see to the care for the education of those concentration camp inmates fit for education. I should like at this time to introduce Prosecution Exhibit No. 43, Document NO-053. This consists simply of a table of organization of Amtsgruppe B of the WVHA. I should like to introduce Prosecution Exhibit No. 44, being NO-1288. It is a table of organization of Amtsgruppe C., submitted to defendant Pohl by Kammler as chief of that Amtsgruppe, dated 29 December 1942. It contains in great detail the plan for the distribution of the work of this Amtsgruppe.
MR. MC HANEY: Before we go on, I would like to ask the Court to turn back to Page 75 of Document NO-053, Prosecution's Exhibit No. 43, and I would ask the Tribunal to remember the name of Professor Dr. Schenk, who is listed under Control Staff B and to note that Dr. Schenk was subordinated to defendant Loerner. The proof will later show that Dr. Schenk was implicated in certain medical experiments in connection with nutrition and the feeding of poisonous and semi-poisonous foods to inmates and I think he was responsible for the typhus experimental studies in Buchenwald. I should like just leave to ask the Tribunal to recall that Dr. Schenk is subordinated to Loerner.
DR. HOFFMAN (Attorney for defendant Scheide): I also want to go back to Document NO-053. That document has been submitted although it has no date and no signature. Moreover, it seems to me that it has been torn from its context because it is hardly likely that only one part of the plan, namely that of Office Group B, should have been found. I think one couldn't submit documents without giving the context of the documents although I believe that the document has been captured. I am unable to formulate any attitude because it is only a single document without me being able to see whether it was torn out - what was its context and who drew it up. I am of the opinion, therefore, that it is not possible to submit that document in that form.
THE PRESIDENT: You are referring now to Exhibit 43?
DR. HOFFMAN: Yes, that is right, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Higgins, do you know whether there is more to this document than appears in the document book?
MR. HIGGINS: Your Honor, this came through as a special testimony document from Berlin without anything other than the table of organization of this Amtsgruppe B. So far as I know, this is all there was of it. It sets up the table of organization of this Amtsgruppe.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal cannot assume that there is more to this document. It cannot even suspect that even though counsel does. What is there to indicate that this document is not complete in itself?
DR. HOFFMAN: I think that no document would have been draw, even by the SS, which, at least, would not have a date and a signature, and I think it is probable that there must have been a whole plan of the organization, including Amtsgruppe A, B, and C, which would have been prepared with the signature of who drew up the plan. It is important for my defendant to state when this plan was drawn up as from that time on he is responsible for these things, but I cannot see that at all from the document and it is highly unlikely that there would have only been one document here.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal is advised that this is the only document which the prosecution has. If there is more to it, if there are other pages to this document, they are not available. The Tribunal has no way of compelling the prosecution to produce the rest of the document, if the prosecution doesn't have the rest of the document.
DR. HOFFMAN: This is so, sir, but, if the court would allow my objection and would not accept the document in this form, the prosecution would probably be prepared to produce the whole document.
THE PRESIDENT: Except that you have not proved that there is any more to this document. You suspect it. You think there should be but there is no proof that there is more than this page to this document.
DR. HOFFMAN: I can only give that proof indirectly because for the reasons which I mentioned above I cannot think that there should be only one page, but I would ask the court to consider. I cannot say any more.
THE PRESIDENT: You think there are several pages. Mr. Higgins thinks there is one page, so there is one man's guess against another's.
DR. HOFFMAN: May it please the Court, Mr. Higgins said that Berlin had sent him only one page. He didn't say that Berlin only possesses one page. Perhaps it may be possible to assume at this point that more pages might be produced.
THE PRESIDENT: We will go as far as we can. We will receive one page and we will direct the prosecution to search Berlin for any other pages that there may be in existence and, if there are others, to produce them.