In this, I am supported by the statements of the witness Kogon, who as keenest opponent of the SS has, in the witness-box, answered my questions to the effect, that in his opinion each case ought to be dealt with individually and that not everyone, who was connected with concentration camps, knew also, what was happening inside.
I quote page 882 and 883 of the German record of the proceedings.
Q.: In your opinion, was the knowledge of the cruelties inside the concentration camps different from the one among SS people?
A.: Yes, there was a difference in the knowledge.
(Page 4 of original)
Q.: Did this knowledge logically decrease with the increasing distance from the concentration camps and did it finally cease altogether?
A.: It was necessarily so, that the knowledge decreased with the increasing distance from a concentration camp. That depended on the position of the person concerned. This in general, applies equally to the German people, there again it depended on the positions, from which one could estimate the knowledge. If a person was employed inside the SS administration which was dealing with concentration camps or hold a position there, his knowledge could even be greater. But is was no more a direct but an indirect knowledge. But even in this, there were exceptions, because higher SS-officials, who had a general knowledge, could also have a direct knowledge, such as the inspector of the concentration camps, to mention the most striking example or the highest medical officer "KL", thus the highest medical officer in charge of concentration camps.
Q.: But, in your opinion, has this case to be examined on its individual merits?
A.: The establishment of the fact of the individual SS member's extent of knowledge and possibility to interfere has to be individually examined".
End of quotation.
I also object to the conception expressed by the Prosecution, that membership of the SS is already proof for charged cruelties and crimes against humanity.
Here, I refer again......
(page 5 of original)
Statement made by the witness Kogon, who upon my inquiry declared: (I quote pages 877 and 878 of the German minutes) "Question:
I mean, witness, whether you, apart from the fact that your ideology was completely contrary to that view of the SS, could establish special facts which were striking, let us say, which surpassed the limits of the generally human. Or were there only ideological oppositions?
Answer: There were what is called ideological oppositions, and there were strong political oppositions and finally there were partly personal oppositions; but, insofar as it was possible, I wish to say I have tried the typology of the SS in the classes which formed at that time. But possible features of particular barbarism, cruelty, cynicism did not strike me more in the face of those whom I met than with other contemporaries."
(End of quotation)
Proceeding from these viewpoints I do not regard the defendant Rudolf Scheide whom I plead for, guilty because he once had a job in the Economic and Administrative Main Office (Wirtschafts- und Verwaltungshauptamt) and in addition also was a member of the SS, but I investigate his case with regard to what he actually did personally, especially with regard to the administration of the concentration camps mentioned here by the prosecuting authority as a charge.
In this connection I am aware that the prosecuting authority as it did in its opening speech on pages 95 and 96 of the German translation, takes the view that a defendant (page 6 of original) in this trial who demands individual treatment on the basis of his sphere of activity will only quibble.
In my opinion the prosecuting authority is not right in this respect if such explanations of the sphere of activity are based on truth.
The prosecuting authority probably would not take this view if it did not believe that it could with the notion of "conspiracy" legally sustain the assertion already described above of a collective guilt of all defendants here.
We Germans have for the first time here in Nurnberg come to know this Anglo-Saxon way of legal thinking. How now the notion of conspiracy is to us, is best shown by the fact that we have included it as a new word in our judicial terminology and as a rule do not translate it with "Verschwoerung" or a similar word but use it as a loan-word for a fixed notion. The notion of conspiracy as it has appeared to us up to now is not identical with any forms of guilt or complicity used by us Germans. As it has up to now only been applied once viz. in the trial before the International Military Tribunal and there was only limited in a negative sense in the verdict, we are not yet able to recognize its meaning to its full extent.
From the fact that the prosecuting authority uses the notion of conspiracy in the most diverse cases we can only conclude what is understood by it on the part of the prosecuting authority. In the Medical Trial before the Military Tribunal I it has been applied on the part (page 7 of original) of the prosecuting authority to a number of doctors who partly belonged to the Wehrmacht, partly to the SS, - even to a civil doctor who belonged to no organization.
On tho other hand, not even a joint deed united the defendants in the Medical Trial since what they are being charged with has happened at most different times and quite independently of each other. On the other hand, in the Flick Trial before the Military Tribunal IV, the prosecuting authority did not bring a charge of conspiracy although in that case as in this case before this Tribunal the prosecuting authority could have pointed to an activity of the defendants under a joint firm name.
Neither are my statements made devoid of application by the fact that the prosecuting authority in addition to referring to the existence of a conspiracy in general, also in particular refers to the provisions of the Law of the Control Council No. 10, Sec. II, para. 2. The provision of this section of No. 10 of the Law of the Control Council seems to me to be a special kind of the notion of conspiracy although up to the present I am not able to see how it can be applied to this case of the defendant Rudolf Scheide. I must, therefore, defend my client in every respect which according to the view of the prosecuting authority might imply such a conspiracy.
It is therefore most natural to discuss first the point of view of the prosecuting authority which bases the asseumption of a conspiracy on the fact that all defendants, and therefore, also my client Rudolf Scheide, were members of the Economic and Administrative Main Office.
In this connection I am of the opinion that in applying an Anglo-Saxon legal principle to German legal (Page 8 of original) conditions consideration should be had for what all people have in common in their sense and feeling of justice.
Otherwise in my opinion there exists the danger that people who have grown up under different laws are done injustice if they are charged with something they generally do not necessarily regard as a moral law for all men, but which was earlier set up by their State in a different legal form, this other law not being in opposition to the inalienable and unchangeable human rights. Just as little as the assertion is correct that somebody is good or bad because he belongs to a certain nation to which he belongs by birth, education, and other external circumstances - thus it is also just as natural that a person can not be regarded as criminal and responsible for crimes only because he worked in a certain office or had a certain vocation.
In my opinion the prosecuting authority also overlooks that the joining of this Economic and Administrative Main Office could only be regarded as an offense according to common human legal principles if the defendant Rudolf Scheide realized what he did and what he took upon himself when he joined this Economic and Administrative Main Office which according to the opinion of the prosecuting authority was criminal. The prosecuting authority has not in particular asserted, neither could it prove that the defendant Rudolf Scheide had this knowledge upon his joining in October 1942.
Here, the prosecution can only generally state that everybody who belonged to the SS, must have known what was going on in these concentration camps. On the other hand, we have heard the witness Engler before this tribunal, who answered my questions on the secrecy in respect to what happened in the concentration camps, as appears on pages 721 and 722 of the German minutes.
I quote:
Q. Witness, did you ever leave the camp Sachensenhausen in the period from 1941 to 1945?
A. No, I did not leave this camp during the period to which you refer.
Q. Witness, were you able to send letters from the camp, in which you could describe the conditions?
A. This was impossible.
Q. When visitors came to the camp, could you contact them, relate what you experienced there.
A. This was also impossible. It was only possible if you were ready to die.
Q. Do you therefore, believe, witness, that the secrecy of the camp towards the outside world was completely secured?
A. I suppose that people, for instance those living in Oranienburg, certainly were aware of the conditions prevailing in the concentration camp Sachsenhausen.
Q. But this was only a limited circle of persons?
A. I cannot say whether larger circles knew about these conditions in the concentration camps, whether in this instance the German people knew about them as far as they did not listen to foreign broadcasts or were informed by former inmates of the concentration camps on the conditions there, which, of course, could only be done under danger of life.
Q. Thus, if a person was already released, he was prohibited by threat of the death penalty to speak about it?
A. Every released internee had to sign a paper, a so-called "Revers" in which he pledged to say nothing about what he had seen and experienced in the concentration camp, in other words, that he would not inform third persons about it.
Q. And do you believe according to your experience in the concentration camp, that this order was respected?
A. Since the whole German people did not dare, or since the greatest part of it did not have the courage, to say anything, those who knew that any information would mean a new confinement or transfer into the camp which would be equal to death will have done so even less".
(End of quotation).
I therefore maintain that the defendant Rudolf Scheid when joining in October 1942, did not know that atrocities were being carried out in the concentration camps which were under the orders of the Economic and Administrative Main Office.
Furthermore, it must be considered that the defendant Rudolf Scheide did not join the Economic and Administrative Main Office voluntarily. He was a member of the Waffen-SS and as such he had to obey an order of his superior authority like a soldier of the Wehrmacht. There was no valid appeal against the order of his transfer. I therefore also hope that this high tribunal will consider the fact that such an order as the defendant Scheide executed and obeyed to, cannot lay to his charge that he already assumed, when joining this Economic and Administrative Main Office, the full responsibility for what the Economic and Administrative Main Office is now being charged with.
In my opinion, another very important question is, whether the defendant Rudolf Scheide ever obtained any concrete knowledge about atrocities in concentration camps as time went on. The defendant Scheide states that he was prohibited from entering concentration camps just as well as any other person and that he would have needed a written order of the defendant Pohl, for entering such a concentration camp. Since a visit in a concentration camp was not a part of his duty as head of the office B V, he did not apply for it. He therefore did not know the concentration camps from the inside and no evidence has been submitted by the prosecution which proves that this statement of the defendant Rudolf Scheide was not true.
Justice requires equally to point out that in an office with a military organization, certain differences in rank existed. The defendant Scheide was promoted to Oberst-Ingenieur (Colonel-Engineer) not before February 1945. At that time the war was almost over. Until that time he was Oberstleutnant (Lieutenant Colonel) in an office, where the large number of the chiefs of the offices held ranks of generals and did certainly not give up their superiority in knowledge and power of command within the office.
But also the office of the defendant Rudolf Scheide itself had nothing to do with the concentration camps. I shall demonstrate to this high tribunal the type of this office, its volume and all its actual activities and we shall find out that the concentration camps had their own technical office which belonged to the Amtsgruppe (Office Group) D and that everything the office BV did through the defendant Rudolf Scheide, related only to general matters of supplying the troops and to the internal motor pool of the Economic and Administrative Main Office as such.
Moreover, I must also deal with the fact that the defendant Rudolf Scheide had joined the NSDAP and the SS very early. It is, however, important to consider in this respect that in 1933, he was called into the newly organized Verfuegungstruppe (Special unit of the SS), which became later the Leibstandarte (body guard) "Adolf Hitler", and that he had since that time a military profession as an active soldier, where he worked himself up from a simple soldier to Oberst-Ingenieur (Colonel-Engineer).
In this connection I will also take into consideration the question where and how the Leibstandarte (body guard) "Adolf Hitler" was assigned before and during the war. I shall demonstrate most clearly the activities of the defendant Rudolf Scheide as a soldier, and the directives, according to which, - after 10 years of service - he was accustomed to work also in the Economic and Administrative Main Office.
It must also be pointed out that it was the main task of this Economic and Administrative Main Office to supply the whole Waffen-SS to which more than 40 divisions with approximately half a million men belonged, which had to be supplied on all fronts. In this respect, one may assume that he cared with his office for this other task and had enough to do with that and that he therefore, left the care for the concentration camps in matters of transport to that office which was assigned for these matters within the D II.
In judging the defendant Rudolf Scheide, it must also be taken into consideration, that this defendant did subjectively believe to fulfill a task, of which, he thought before he saw the results here, before this tribunal, that it was a good task and that it served his country.
He, therefore, did not fulfill these tasks with the feeling that they were, perhaps, crimes.
I already discussed above that the defendant Scheide will tell us as a witness in detail what included him to join the NSDAP and the SS. Thus, we will see that his conception of National Socialism and of the aims of the SS was quite different from the interpretation at which one has to arrive now on the basis of our knowledge of the atrocities committed.
It will not be denied in this connection that the defendant Rudolf Scheide certainly did not oppose the general events as they were caused by Hitler. He became a soldier in the Waffen-SS and participated together with his unit - during the war - in the campaigns against Poland, France, Greece and also against Russia.
He also obeyed the orders of his superior office and joined the Economic and Administrative Main Office as an Ingenieur-Offizier (Officer-Engineer). He wore the black uniform and thus contributed his share to the existence of the National Socialist Regime and the carrying through of the war. But this will - after the defense-counsel will have made his statements - in my opinion not justify this indictment which connects the defendant with all these crimes against humanity of which we have heard here. These statements are not a concession to the Prosecution or a request for extenuating circumstances.
They are based on the fact that the Defendant Scheide refuses to call himself a "member of the SS on paper only" or a person who only reluctantly wore the chevron "Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler". He would regard this as too cowardly in face of the fact that thousands of smaller SS men have much more right to use such arguments.
Thus the Defendant Scheide is also of the opinion that it is of no purpose to deny things which have happened.
He does not need either to twist and to turn because his actions are not such that he has to fear public opinion.
He has nothing to conceal or to hide; he has only to back up his conviction which made him become and SS man and an officer.
DR. BERGOLD (for defendant Klein): may it please the Tribunal, we have only one copy of my opening speech for the interpreter.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO): We will get copies later, though?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes; yes, certainly.
May it please the Tribunal:
In its opening speech the Prosecution has limited itself in this trial to give a general description of the SS and its character as well as of the WVHA. Aside from a few individual defendants it has not given a clear description of the remainder of the defendants. It actually has let the individual defendants disappear within the anonymity of the WVHA.
It seems to me that this method is not correct for two reasons: First of all, according to Control Council Law No. 10 there is no concept of a conspiracy to commit war crimes against humanity. The Tribunal will probably recall the statements which I made in my final pleadings in the Milch case on the subject. These statements, which were based on the verdict of the International Military Tribunal and the next of Control Council Law No. 10, I maintain to the fullest extent.
In order to save time I shall refrain from repeating them here. However, it seems to me as if the Tribunal in its verdict against Milch had been in agreement with my point of view; after all, the Tribunal has not supported the existence of a conspiracy in the points of the indictment in the Milch case. In the part of the verdict which deals with count 2 of the indictment in the Milch case, there was in my opinion included a precise analysis of the legal reasons which alone are able to support an accusation. In the first two counts the Tribunal has outlined the objective facts. The next five counts then precisely analyze when an individual defendant can be declared guilty, and when in the objective sense we are dealing with a war crime or crime against humanity The Tribunal set forth that the following had to be examined:
1. Whether the defendant personally participated in such crimes.
2. Whether they were carried out under his direction and by his orders.
3. Whether he knew, prior to the commission of the crimes, that they could turn into excesses and become inhumane.
4. Whether he had the authority or the opportunity to prevent them or to stop them.
5. If this applies, did he fail to act and did he thus become particeps criminis and an accomplice.
These clear statements in my opinion set forth that it is necessary in every case to examine the activity of an individual defendant individually and specifically for each count of the indictment.
Thus it is not permissible, with the support of the concept of a conspiracy and only because of the membership of the individual defendant in a larger organization, in this case the WVHA and the SS, to judge and condemn him here solely for these considerations.
Furthermore, such a procedure is also contrary to the actual facts, something which must always be strictly observed by justice. The Tribunal has knowledge of the book "The SS-State". Its author, KOGON, has appeared here as a witness; and it is certain that he is an opponent of the concentration camps and the WVHA. Therefore, however, his testimony must be considered the more important in those points where he limits the accusations personally raised by him with regard to their general application to the individual defendants.
I only want to quote a few paragraphs from his book.
On page 9 of the German edition he states:
"Department D was so independent that various branches were annexed to it, which actually would have belonged to the SS-FHA, as for example the "Physician in charge of the concentration camps", an institution of the medical service. On page 297 he states: "The system therefore was surrounded with a close net of secrecy. The best kept secret was the procedure within the concentration camps, which only served to spread an anonymous horror in a general political sense. To what absurdities this system led becomes evident from the fact that not even the Gestapo officials were entitled to enter the camp without a special permission from Department IV of the RSHA, although, after all, they were the ones who were responsible for the fact that thousands of people had been transferred into the concentration camps.
Therefore, only an extremely small number of Gestapo officials knew concretely just what the hell looked like to which they had condemned their victims".
I quote from page 231: "SS visitors frequently came into the camps. The camp administration had developed a strange procedure in these cases; on the one hand it tried to hide the facts, on the other hand it produced certain special exhibits.
Instruments, which might have pointed to the fact that prisoners were being tortured were not shown during the so-called sight-seeing tours and such objects were hidden. For example, the infamous "Book" a torture instrument, which usually stood on the roll-call grounds was taken into one of the barracks until the visitors had left. On one occasion this precautionary measure apparently was not complied with, and to the question of a visitor, what kind of an instrument this was, one of the camp commanders replied that this was a model for carpentry for the production of special objects. Gallows and posts which usually served for hangings were always taken away. The visitors were mainly shown around in the exemplary facilities; the hospital, the cinema, the kitchen, the laundry chamber and in the agricultural section. If they ever entered into a barracks inhabited by prisoners, then they usually entered those of the "detached" people, where the barbers for the SS as well as prisoners with special privileges were located.
These statements by Kogon show, that therefore even a member of the SS and the WVHA cannot simple be expected to have knowledge of the conditions within the camps and the aims of the WVHA. Therefore, the situation and the statements made by the Prosecution in its opening speech and the method it employed in its presentation of evidence do not seem permissible to me, namely, to simply allege that the defendant had knowledge of everything that happened within the camps and departments and industries of the WVHA.
It must also be stated here, that also the International Military Tribunal, in the part of its verdict in which the criminality of the SS was set forth, recognized it as a prerequisite for the criminality of the individual member of the SS, that this member must have had knowledge of it, or that he or the SS was used for criminal acts. This means, that the Prosecution is not relieved of its obligation to prove the concrete knowledge of the individual defendant, even though from general conclusions such a knowledge might he assumed.
The Tribunal has also stated in the Milch-verdict, that there are two important prerequisites for every trial:
1. Every person accused of a crime is to be considered innocent and 2. he is to remain under the protection of this legal presumption until his guilt has been proven beyond any doubt.
But even if this legal theory was not to be applied here and the existence of prima facie evidence to the detriment of the individual defendant is to be presumed, then the individual defendant still does not have to bring a completely exact proof to the contrary, i.e. that he did not have any knowledge. It probably is an established law throughout the world that prima facie evidence can be rendered impotent solely by giving general circumstances from which it again can be deducted prima facie that in an individual case the facts on which the first prima facie evidence is based are not applicable. In Germany this has already been an established ruling of the Reich-Court ever since the time of the German Empire. In this case that implies specifically: If a defendant brings forth circumstances, from which it can be deducted, even if only in a general sense, that contrary to general expectations he did not have any knowledge of crimes which were committed, then the Prosecution must bring forth exact proof in each case of his knowledge. In this case it must be pointed out that the statements of Kogon already give circumstances showing that knowledge cannot easily be expected. If this was not to be observed, then what during the trial before the IMT had become the fear of all persons acquainted with the Law would come true, namely, that through the declaration that the SS was a criminal organization everyone of its members was already from the very start condemned forever and without having been heard. However, the International Military Tribunal, as is evident from discussions during the first trial, has tried to avoid this.
I believe that these statements are necessary here in view of the summary of the opening speech of the Prosecution. Even when we are dealing with the facts which are filling every decent human being with horror, those, who are to pronounce the Law and want to find justice never must allow themselves to be influenced by indignation and pronounce a general judgment.
The individual case must always be examined, precisely and slowly, even though it may have a great and horrible connection.
The defendant Horst Klein was at the head of an office in the WVHA. His activity and the clubs under his direction and the convalescent homes however did not actually have anything to do with the real aims of the WVHA. The clubs and homes over which he presided could equally well have been administered outside of the WVHA by the general organization of the SS. They did not pursue any scientific but only ideal and beneficial aims. They had nothing to do with financing the SS and they were not industries which were operated for profits. No connection tied them with the unlawful treatment of the prisoners of war, with the euthanasia program, nor with any experiments. They were not aimed at making crimes against persons or the spoliation of their property possible. Their aim was not the establishment of concentration camps, to maintain them, nor to torture the persons confined in them nor to kill them. They did not deal with acts which were carried out by the state or the SS-agencies in countries outside of Germany against the citizens there and their property. Nobody can seriously claim, that these clubs and homes over which the defendant Klein was business manager, had in anyway facilitated the suppression and extermination of entire races. Already the affidavit which has been submitted by the defendant himself shows that his activity cannot be identified with the actual activity of the WVHA.
It is worthy of mentioning, that the sister of the defendant fell into the hands of the Gestapo and was sent to a concentration camp. Through the evidence arising out of the negotiations of the defendant I shall prove that the defendant did not know what fate was threatenin his own sister in a concentration camp. Thus it will become apparent that the defendant did not have any knowledge of the true character of the concentration camps.
A short time later he was then relieved of his work.
In repudiation of the Schwarz-affidavit, which has been presented I shall state that the defendant did not have anything directly to do with the construction works at Wewelsburg, and that the building administration was directly subordinated to the personal staff of Himmler and that the employment of concentration camp inmates at Wewelsburg was not in any way influenced by Klein. I shall state in particular that he did not have any authority over the camp at Wewelsburg. I shall prove that Klein did not know that prisoners at Wewelsburg died of starvation or malnutrition. Through further proof I shall clarify that the defendant within his work which actually was completely legal, always maintained a decent and correct attitude and that he tried to help everybody as far as he was able to do so. All this will show that Klein on observing the fundamental principles established by the Tribunal in the Milch trial cannot be held responsible for the crimes which have so deeply moved us here.
DR. GAWLIK (For defendant Leo Volk):
Defendant Volk has been indicted on all four counts of the indictment.
With regard to Count 1 of the Indictment, the Joint plot or conspiracy: The Prosecution maintains that Defendant Volk, together with the other defendants, participated in a conspiracy to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, in the sense of Control Council Law No. 10.
The deed of conspiracy first of all requires evidence to the effect that a joint plan or an agreement existed between Defendant Volk and at least one of the other defendants. The Prosecution apparently wishes to adduce proof of such a plan or agreement from the fact that Defendant Volk and the other defendants belonged to the SS-Main Economic and Administrative Office, WVHA, which was under the direction of Defendant Pohl. In refutation of this, I shall produce evidence that from Defendant Wolk's position within the WVHA, it cannot be inferred that he, together with one of the other defendants, agreed to a joint plan to commit war crimes or crimes against humanity.
In particular, I shall prove that this cannot be deduced from the fact that from the summer of 1942 on, Volk was characterized as the "personal adviser to the Chief of the Main Office" did not correspond to the actual scope of Defendant Volk's duties. In his capacity as personal Referent, Defendant Volk merely had to take care of the personal private affairs of Defendant Pohl. These affairs were connected neither with the economic plans nor with any one of Defendant Pohl's other duties in his capacity as Amtsgruppe Chief of the WVHA. Defendant Pohl did not initiate Defendant Volk into his sphere of duties as Main Office Chief especially not insofar as this activity extended to Concentration camps. From 1942 on, only Amtsgruppe D which had its own legal adviser, was the competent authority for concentration camps. Defendant Volk, therefore, did not concern himself with the legal affairs of concentration camps. Evan the fact that Defendant Volk was Prokurist for the Deutsche Wirtschaftsbetriebe (German Economic Enterprises) cannot be considered as participation in a conspiracy and cannot serve as ground for holding Defendant Volk responsible for war crimes or crimes against humanity in the event that such crimes should have been committed in an enterprise of the German economic enterprises.
I shall next discuss the legal nature of the German economic enterprises, which has up till now remained completely unclarified. In particular, I shall demonstrate that the German economic enterprises was merely a company for the administration of capital, which was created as a parent organization for numerous subsidiary companies. The subsidiary companies, insofar as they are of interest in this trial, had their own legal advisers. In his capacity as Prokurist for the German economic enterprises Defendant Volk's duty consisted merely in drawing up legal documents and contracts as well as conducting civil suits and the like. This is especially evinced in Document NO 1039, Volume XIV, Page 23, of the German Document Book.
Defendant Volk was not conversant with events within the individual plants.
Prior to the establishing of the WVHA Defendant Volk was employed in Main Department IIIA/4, as deputy for Defendant Bobermin.
The witness hearing which I am going to carry out on behalf of Defendant Bobermin will show that he
a) was not a participant in a conspiracy
b) committed no war crimes or crimes against humanity.
For this reason alone, therefore, criminal participation in a conspiracy for the perpetration of war crimes and crimes against humanity is precluded, as regards Defendant Volk's activity in Main Department IIIA/4.
Since, therefore, Defendant Volk was not a participant in a conspiracy, he accordingly cannot be brought to account for the actions of any of the other defendants. Rather, Defendant Volk can be held responsible only for such war crimes or crimes against humanity, which he himself is supposed to have committed.
With regard to Counts 2 and 3 of the indictment (War crimes and crimes against humanity:
With respect to Counts 2 and 3 of the indictment, I shall bring proof that Defendant Volk himself committed no war crimes or crimes against humanity whatsoever.
The Prosecution has listed the war crimes and the crimes against humanity, with which Defendant Volk is charged, under the following headings:
a) Crimes which were committed against prisoners in concentration camps.
b) Medical experiments.
c) Euthanasia - Action 14f13.
d) Systematic and ruthless extermination of the Jewish race.
e) Activities of the SS - Industry.
I shall arrange the evidence in accordance with this division.