A: I would like to say it very briefly. Fanslau, according to his age, was the youngest chief of office in Amtsgruppe A. Loerner, Hans Loerner of Group A-1, Eckert of A-II, Vogt, of A-IV, all these people were people who were about ten years older than Fanslau. Therefore, it can be understood that all these persons who were in their office all these years worked there and it is known to me that all these chiefs of amtsgruppes had to report directly to Pohl. I believe that was the way it was also when Fanslau became office chief.
Q: Who made Fanslau your deputy? Pohl did that, didn't he?
A: I did not quite understand that question.
Q: Who made Fanslau your Deputy Chief in Amtsgruppe A?
A: Pohl.
Q: You still haven't answered my question. Did or did not Fanslau act as Chief of A during the period from September 1943 to May 1944. He was Acting Chief of A, was he not?
A: No.
Q: What does it mean to be a deputy of an Amtsgruppe. Doesn't it mean that when the Chief is away, as you were away, that he acts in the Chief's place? There were several months there that you were away and the office was vacant, You told us Fanslau was Deputy chief of the Office. Can you give us any conceivable explanation why it was that he wasn't acting as Chief?
A: Because he was not in a position, that is, technically and factually, to do so. Fanslau was simply a specialist on personnel questions.
Q: How was it he was able to take over the entire office a few months later?
A: I believe the reason was that he was a kind of honour and that actually and officially nothing changed. In the meantime he probably got used to all those things -- got used to the whole job.
Q: During that period, then, there is no doubt about it that Fanslau was Deputy Chief of Amtsgruppe A, from September 1943; to May 1944.
A: He had not been nominated as such officially.
Q: He was Deputy Chief, wasn't he?
A: Of Amtsgruppe A? Yes, yes, he was that already at my time.
Q: And as far as orders were concerned, he was the superior in the Amtsgruppe -- he was responsible to Pohl for the Amtsgruppe?
A: No, I don't think so. I believe that the individual Amtsgruppe chiefs were directly responsible to Pohl during that period of time.
Q: Are you sure about that, or is that just a guess?
A: I am of the opinion, due to the knowledge I have about it, namely that Fanslau knew nothing about the things of A-1, A-II, and A-IV, or, shall I say he did not know enough to report to Pohl about those things. In other words, he would have had to take along the Chief of the Amt. to the conference, and, according to my opinion, that would have been rather ridiculous.
Q: That certainly is not an answer to my question, but let's go to another matter. You told us the other day about Amt. A-IV, or, rather, Amt. 5-IV. Can you tell us today just what the function of that office was?
A: That there was an Amt. A5-IV, I read in the documents here, I didn't know at all before, nor was I interested in it, because how this Amt. A5-IV was subdivided and furthermore the fact that Glueck's Ajutant was a man who worked on personnel questions, and that he used the file note A5-IV, I didn't know.
Q: Will you repeat that? I am sorry I didn't get it.
A: The personnel question expert with Gluecks at the same time was Gluecks' Adjutant and that expert in personnel matters dealt with both personnel matters for the concentration camp commandants and also with personnel questions for the administrative officers and apparently, as I have to understand from this document here, in his capacity as Chief of Personnel Questions of the Administrative Officers, he worked with the File Note A5-IV.
Q: It was more than a file note. It was an office. It was an office under you and Fanslau and in this chart, which was the official chart of the WVHA, I believe it is NO-111 -- it is in Document Book No. II and under you as Chief of Amtsgruppe A and under Fanslau, as Chief of Office A-5, it is a different subdivision; it is A5-I, which is Replacements, Listings, and Dismissals that's correct, isn't it?
A: Yes, I read it.
Q: A5-II, which is Promotions, Assignments and Transfers -
A: Yes.
MR. ROBBINS: I should like to point out to the court that unfortunately all of this information is not contained in the chart that is attached to the basic information brief, and unfortunately too the translation of this material is not included in the English translation of Document NO-111. I will supply the court with a complete translation of this document. This is the only omission which exists in the translation of the document. Then there is A5-III, which is Training and Schools. That was under Fanslau, wasn't it? Then there is A5-IV, which is shown on the chart as being under Fanslau and it is called Concentration Camps Replacements, Dismissals, Promotions, Detached Service, Transfer and Training, and then in parentheses, "Attached to Amtsgruppe D." This was under Fanslau's supervision, wasn't it?
A: Mr. Prosecutor, that particular chart was changed by Fanslau here in jail and that by his interrogator.
Q: Witness, it may have been changed by Fanslau in jail, but this is a captured document. This is an official document that was used by the WVHA. I should think that Fanslau -- I should think that Fanslau would like to change it, but this remains as part of the record. This office was under Fanslau. That is shown by the official chart of the WVHA and it was under you. You don't deny that, do you?
A: Mr. Prosecutor, when this organizational order, this particular one that is before the Tribunal now, was discussed by the interrogator and Fanslau in order to confirm everything that is contained in that original
Q: Don't tell us what Fanslau told the interrogator. Just tell us what you know about A5-IV, which was under your competence.
A: I never did know that A5-IV operated with our Main Office, not my Main Office. I did not know the expert in those matters. I didn't know him personally, that is, I didn't know who it was nor did I know how Fanslau had subdivided that in his own Amt. You have the original before your now. Such an organizational chart is planned and then only it is found whether it can be maintained. It can be seen if it can be kept up and complied with and that depends on what the necessity requires. You think there was no change in this plan later on, just exactly as Fanslau told his interrogator and it was accepted; according to my opinion, the main office A5-IV was stationed at Oranienburg.
Q: Escuse me, the reason I think there wasn't a change in this organizational plan is based in part on your testimony of a day or two ago. If necessary, I can put my finger on it, and you said that the administrative official -- you said this in answer to Judge Phillips' question -- the administrative official in the concentration camp was appointed by the Personnel Office of the WVHA and that is under Fanslau.
A: He was not appointed. One person -
Q: Well, he was named then. He was designated then.
A: Yes, that is correct.
Q: And that was carried out under A5-IV.
A: May I repeat the concentration camp commandants were not administrative experts. Their files generally speaking -
Q: Excuse me. You have given us quite sufficient detail about what the administrative official does and I don't think it is necessary to go into that. I would like to show you another document here which deals with the description of A5-IV and get your explanation of that question, Document 1923 - NO -- This document, I might say, has already been distributed for insertion in the document book, but it has not been marked for identification. I have forgotten what the last exhibit was -
THE PRESIDENT: 551. This is 552.
Q This is a leter from Gluecks. Now, Doctor, this has already been distributed for inclusion in the documents books. I'm sure you have a copy of it somewhere. This is a letter from Gluecks of Amtsgruppe D, and it is to the camp commanders of all the concentration camps and also to Amtsgruppe D and the residential camp Bergen-Belsen.
Under sub-paragraph E Gluecks orders that certain reports be made by the concentration camp commandant to Office A-V-IV. Other reports are to be made by the commanders of the concentration camps to D-I, D-111, D-IV, and so forth.
Do you know whether or not these reports were actually sent to A-V-VI?
A Mr. Prosecutor, this document is a striking proof of the fact that Amt-AV-IV had nothing to do with the personnel office because Amtsgruppe A-V should have participated or at least been mentioned in this document if Amt V-IV had been part of IV. It is absolutely impossible that Gluecks writes an order here and give various orders to Amt V-IV, without then notifying the Chief of Amt V as you say. That is something that is absolutely impossible in military circles. I should like to refer to letter E, in particular now. Under E it says,: "Monthly strenght report for participants in SS Army Office." What did Office A-V ever have to do with post offices?
Q General, I am asking the questions and you are giving the answers. Suppose you tell us what A-V had to do with these matters.
A Nothing at all, Mr. Prosecutor. Certainly nothing at all. Mr. Prosecutor, may I refer to number 3 under E, with reference to exchange of men fit for active service. That's purely a military matter which has nothing to do with administration. "Monthly report on racial German volunteers from Southest Europe"--that is a mater also which has nothing to do with the administration.
Q This falls very logically into the other subject offices. A-V-I deals with replacements and dismissal; A-V-II with promotions, assignments, and transfers, and A-V-III with training and schools.
They dealt with military matters. Why is it so illogical that A-V-IV would deal with military matters?
A Yes, Mr. Prosecutor, it is illogical. The reason is that A-V-IV was at the same time Gluecks adjutant, and whatever is said here in this report are questions of adjutant's nature. They are adjutant's tasks but not personnel tasks. I can see from this document that the man also signed with Amt A-V-IV in adjutant's questions, which, of course, is nonsense. For instance, 3 sets forth matters about wounded, or V would have to do with free places for wounded men. It is nothing but purely adjutant's tasks.
Q I don't think there's any point in arguing the matter further with you. Undoubtedly the office had a good deal to do with Amtsgruppe D because on the chart it says that certain functions are attached to Amtsgruppe D. I think the documents, however, will speak for themselves. Jill you tell us approximately how many people were under Fanslau's supervision while he was Chief of amtsgruppe A?
AAt what date, Mr. Prosecutor?
Q When he became Chief in May 1944.
A I couldn't tell you that. I don't know that.
Q Well, how many were under your supervision when you left in September 1943?
A You mean the entire Amtsgruppe or A-V?
Q No, the entire Amtsgruppe.
AAltogether with auxiliary forces, there must have been 150 people.
Q How many were under Vogt's supervision at the height of his carrier in the WVHA ?
A Mr. Prosecutor, it very difficult for me to tell you that today.
Q Just give us a rough estimate. I don't want to know exactly.
A Well, an approximate estimate would be that Vogt when I left in July 1943 had approximately and totally thirty to thirty-five employees under his supervision, that is, including the ladies.
Q Is that the most he ever had under his supervision? It was larger than that, wasn't it?
A Yes, that's correct.
Q What was the largest number of employees under his supervision?
A I shall again tell you that it's nothing but an approximate number. His highest number must have been approximately twenty officers, fifteen NC)'s and fifteen to twenty civilian employees.
Q Do you mean that he was just a little bookkeeper?
A I never did say that.
Q Fanslau, who became Office Chief after you, must have had 150 people under him. He wasn't just a little bookkeeper, was he?
A I never did imply that, Mr. Prosecutor. He was Major General.
Q Hans Loerner, who became Deputy Chief of the entire Amtsgruppe wasn't just a little bookkeeper, was he?
A Loerner seen from a certain point of view and from the capacities involved in his work, was the smallest of them all. According to my opinion in 1944 he had only a personnel strenght of four.
Q You would classify him as a little book keeper?
A Bookkeeper is not the correct expression. Anyway he didn't have any books.
Q Weel, you told us your first day on the stand that if we had Rudolf Hess and Lolling , Gluecks, Eicke here, then the little bookkeepers of Amtsgruppe A wouldn't be in the dock today. I'm just trying to find out whom you were talking about. You don't consider yourself as a little bookkeeper, do you, General?
A Mr. Prosecutor, I used your own words at the time. I only wanted to point out that I had used the terms used in the indictment. The indictment itself speaks of bookkeepers, and that is the reason why I used that expression. I should not like to degrade myself down to degrade myself down to the rank of a bookkeeper from a general.
I am not deprecating the profession of a bookkeeper, of course.
Q I wanted to make sure that we didn't have any little bookkeepers in the dock. Now, will you tell us how often the camp administrative officer balanced hos books?
A That? Balanced the books?
Q Yes. Was that quaterly, twice a year, annually?
A Books were balanced every three months and sent to Berlin. They stayed in Berlin until they were checked because only a certain percentage was audited during the war. In Germany we called that spot checks.
Q In other words, the balance sheets of the administrative officer were sent to Berlin?
Q Yes, the budget slips were sent to Berlin, that's correct.
Q And these balance sheets-
A Excuse me, Mr. Prosecutor. I should like to say that I am only telling you all this from my own knowledge up to July 1943; that after that I do not know anything about it.
Q Then in Berlin the balance sheets were checked by A-IV, were they not?
A Yes, spot checks.
Q Can you tell us whether A-IV had anything to do with checking the income from the use of concentrationcamp inmates, so-called wages? We discussed this subject the other day, but I don't believe I got an answer to that question.
A Yes, that's right. We were interrupted, I mentioned before that those amounts which were paid by the industry to the concentrationcamps as so-called wages were taken in by the Reich. In other words , they became an income to the Reich. Those incomes were con tained in the cash books of the concentration camps just exactly as the expenses were. Due to the fact that every three months all these balance sheets were sent to Berlin, there was a possibility, of course, of see ing on the basis of the balance how much money had become an income for the Reich.
Q One last question which I have omitted to ask you. You were Pohl's deputy, were you not, as treasurer of the NSDAP?
A You mean in the Party?
Q Yes.
A Yes, MR. ROBBINS: I have no further questions.DR. RAUSCHEN BACH ( for the defendant August Frank): Mr. President, I have no questions for the redirect examination.EXAMINATION BY DR. VON STAKEBERG (for the defendant Fanslau):Q Witness, this chart, which is Document NO-111 , did you know it from before?
A May I see it for just one moment, please? Yes, I know that chart, yes.
Q When did you see it for the first time?
A When it was printed on the 3rd of March 1942.
Q Did you participate in the drafting of this chart?
A At least I did for Amtsgruppe A.
Q How was it then that this term, this special term, A-V-IV, was used?
A I have already told the prosecution that I had no knowledge about that, that I could't give any further information because I no longer recall how this sub-department A-V-IV was established. I believe that Fanslau himself is the man that could give you the best possible answer.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Do you know anything about the Personnel Office with the former Inspectorate of the concentration camps?
A I only know what I already told, namely, that the personnel question expert was at the same time an adjutant.
Q I mean, about the former existence of the personnel office. That is, did the personnel office already exist before the incorporation?
A Yes, of course. The Inspectorate brought that along with it. It was not perfected.
Q You are speaking of what particular strength of the personnel office?
A With the strength of the personnel office, I don't know that it had the same personnel strength. However, Haarbaum was there as an adjutant.
Q At the time Haarbaum was inspector of that, was he?
A I only knew Haarbaum as Gluecks' adjutant.
Q I see. Would you again tell us what it shows here as to A-V-IV?
A The abbreviation is "K.A." that is releases, promotions, transmissions, assignments, training, assigned to Amtsgruppe-D.
Q It starts with "KL" that is, that refers to administrative officers to concentration camp service, or men in concentration camps?
A Well, in my opinion that only applies to administrative officers. I don't know for sure how the whole thing was interpolated in here. It is very difficult for me to give all this detail, because it was immaterial to me at the time, and I had other worries but to worry about those things here.
Q Was anything discussed as between the administrative career and the concentration camp career? Was there a difference?
A You can not discuss the difference. There was nothing in common. They had nothing in common. The concentration camp commandant Court No. II, Case No. 4.came from the sphere of army administration, namely, the army and front line duty, therefore, they did not have anything to do with administration, and they were not trained in administration, and, if they had been released or changed to start with a concentration camp as commandant, they did not go back to administration, but they were transferred to any other office where they could be useful, but never were they transferred to the administration, because they did not have any administrative training.
Q Did the members of the concentration camp service also wear a different uniform?
A The uniform was the same. However, the color of the patches was brown, the lape patch. I'll have to add, those were the shoulder patches, and the administrative officers wore blue ones.
Q Haarbaum as Office Chief of Personnel Office of AmtsgruppeD, did he at any time report to you, that is actually on personnel questions?
A As I have already stated before, I did not know that he worked on these personnel questions. I only know him as Gluecks' adjutant.
Q In other words, you as Chief Officer of Amtsgruppe-A never had any connection whatsoever with this personnel office of Amtsgruppe-D?
A No, it would have been unusual for me to do so, that is, if several department chiefs of Amts would come to report to me, it would be unusual.
Q Did you know that Haarbaum had to report to the defendant Fanslau?
A I am not in a position to tell you anything about that.
Q When Fanslau discussed personnel questions, did you at any time discuss the questions about the duties in the concentration camps?
A Insofar as when an administrative officer of a concentra Court No. II, Case No. 4.tion camp was transferred to the front line duty, then it was possible that Fanslau asked me, "Do you think this man is capable of taking care of administrative front line duty questions?"
Q However, that deals with administrative officers in concentration camps. I am referring to concentration camp duty, the men who wore those brown patches?
A Well, I did not know these people myself.
Q In other words, Fanslau at no time made reports to you about these questions and these peoples?
A No, not about these questions nor about these people.
Q The order of 4 July 1944 which was just mentioned by the Prosecution in this distribution list in spite of the fact it was sent from the Chief of WVHA, it contains amongst other things officers of SS-WVHA, Amtsgruppe A-IV, and SS-WVHA Amts-A-1. Now was it usual that the Amts were issued directives by the Chief's Office, or did it go through the Amtsgruppe Chief?
A You are quite right to mention that point. It was not usual, no. It would have to be addressed formally to the Chief of the Amtsgruppe, and that was A-I, and to A-IV. The fact that it was sent to them is further proof that the offices of chief amtsgruppes was vacant.
Q Or at least practically vacant?
A Yes, at least practically vacant.
Q And you can tell me that from your own knowledge of the conditions of WVHA?
A Yes. I already mentioned that to the Prosecution.
Q I have one more question as to the deputyship of Fanslau. I have already asked the question during my first interrogation. However, I would like to refer to this question again. What were the tasks that the defendant Fanslau had as your deputy. Did he have actual tasks; was he actually a superior of the other Amts-chiefs?
A I believe that I would bore this Tribunal if I were to Court No. II, Case No. 4.repeat that the deputies had to do in WVHA.
They were not deputies in the sense it is used with various offices, namely, that every chief had his deputy, and that their deputies had nothing else to do but actually to represent their chief. That never applied to us, and in our own office we had so much work to do that it was actually impossible. It would have been impossible. For instance, in my own case, I would have to participate in all the conferences with Pohl. In other words, Gluecks would want to see Pohl, and Pohl would say, Frank, come on with me, Gluecks is here. Or a commandant would come, Kammler, he would be here, and, he would call me up and say, come along, Kammler is here, and then, of course, it would not be possible to do any work at all. That was the reason why being a deputy in Germany, it was never carried out in that sense, and was never carried out in that manner. It had nothing to do with representation of deputyship. We deputized certain deputy actions when the chief was not there, but there was no factual representations.
Q I believe you have explained it quite clearly, and I would like the question brought to a conclusion, that a deputy does not have to have the factual knowledge of everything that occurred in an Amtsgruppe?
A No.
DR. STAKELBERG: Thank you. No further questions.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Let me see that chart, will you please?
Q The Court understands you to testify to the fact that in the making up of this chart in 1942 that you gave the information as Chief of A-I for the things that are contained under Amtsgruppe-A in this chart, is that correct?
A May it please Your Honor, All these individual Amtschiefs I ordered them to give me a description of how they imagine their organization for their group, and I compiled all their suggestions, and I made that main suggestion to Pohl, but --
Q I understand you to say you participated in the making of Court No. II, Case No. 4.this chart as Chief of Amtsgruppe-A?A That is correct, Your Honor.
However, not as to the details, I did not go into detail. I could not do that.
Q Well, did you then ask Fanslau to give you or to break down his office, and to give you the data on that when you were asking the various chiefs for the information about that particular office, or the particular office, under Amtsgruppe-A?
A Yes, indeed, that was the way it was.
Q Then did Fanslau give you the various branches of his offices, to-wit, Amts-A-V, and subdivided it into A-V-1, II, III and IV, as you have it in the chart here?
A That is the way; probably it was, Your Honor.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Allright, that is all.
DR. STAKELBERG: Your Honor, I have just one more question in this connection.
BY DR. STAKEIBERG:
Q Witness, how many organizational charts were actually set up by WVHA at the staging of the WVHA?
A The organizational chart was rejected several times and renewed.
Q Was such an organizational chart set up in January or February?
A In January, no. No, I am sure, because -
Q Was it February?
A Yes, in February, yes.
Q Are you quite sure that those statements which you just made, namely, the statements about the organizational chart to your Amts-chief, referred to that particular chart?
A I don't quite understand your question.
Q What I want to find out is, did you participate in the setup of the chart, do you know, that I have there?
A I believe, yes. I believe I have to answer that question Court No. II, Case No. 4.with a yes, because as the Judge just asked me, I stated that I myself could not supply all the necessary material to set up an organizational chart about the Amtsgruppen, because I did not know of my own knowledge, therefore, I had to get all these documents from the Amts-chiefs, and only as Judge Phillips has just stated, that I must have received the documents of Amts-A-V and compiled them in a common Amtsgruppe suggestion.
Q But your formulation shows that you knew nothing about it, but will you state now you must have received it, and I am asking you, are you sure here, or are you just assuming that?
A How am I to recollect that today after six years. That is all I wanted to know.
Q That is all I wanted to know, that is nothing but an assumption on your part. You cannot say that you know that, or say it, from your own knowledge? You assume that, you personally assume that the Amts-chiefs put that before you?
A Yes, because they could not do it any other way, basing everything else on what I can recall.
Q And the answer which you gave me that you participated in that chart is nothing but an assumption on your part? You can no longer recall that exactly, can you?
A I am sure that I participated in that chart. I can state that under oath.
DR. STAKELBERG: Your Honor, I can say nothing further about it, but I am surprised because I have other evidence that he did not participate in that, and I shall introduce it.
BY DR. BELZER (Counsel for defendant Karl Sommer):
Q. Witness, as I was told, you testified yesterday afternoon in the cross examination in connection with the wages for the inmates that the Labor Assignment Leader for the concentration camps was subordinate to Amt D-II. Do you maintain that statement?
A That was an assumption on my part because I can not figure it out in any other way. I read here on the chart that D-II was in charge of labor allocation.
A You assume then that the individual offices of Amtsgruppe D in the concentration camps had a sub-department, a department which was under their charge? .
A No, I do not assume that.
Q How, then, can you say that an organization, or rather, a member of an organization, or rather, a member of a concentration camp was subordinated to Amt D-II?
A Because I could not figure it out in any other way. If the labor assignment leader did not receive his orders from a bakery or from a labor allocation man, and the labor allocation man is to receive his orders from some place, and everyone has a superior, it could not be anybody else but the commander.
Q Let me ask you this way: Where do you believe that the orders of Amt D-II were sent - to the concentration camp commandants or to the labor allocation leader?
A I do not know that.
Q Mr. Robbins asked you before with reference to various defendants, "Are they small bookkeepers?" Unfortunately, Mr. Robbins ceased examining you on that question before mentioning the defendant Sommer. Mr. Robbins quit examining you on that point by stating, "You do not wish to say, in other words, that there are no small bookkeepers in the dock?" Are you sure that you really want to maintain that statement with reference to the defendant Sommer?
A I was not asked about that.
Q But I am asking you.
A I stated before that I saw Sommer here in this Tribunal for the first time. How am I to tell what kind of work he did or what his task was? I met Sommer here. I believe that his rank, a captain, shows that there must have been a difference between the tasks of a general and the tasks of a captain, and that a captain does not have or could not bear the same responsibility as a general or a colonel could, and I believe that applies to all the armies of the world.
Q Earlier this morning you told us that you asked the defendant Sommer in this Tribunal where Amtsgruppe D, or Amt D-II received the watches. Did you not also ask the defendant Sommer what his duties were in Amt D-II?
A No, I was interested simply in the watches. I was not interested in the rest.
DR. BELZER: Thank you, no further questions.
BY DR. HEIM (Counsel for defendant Hohberg):
Q Witness, I have only one question to put to you. From one of your statements yesterday it can be understood that you looked upon the defendant Baier as the successor to Hohberg and that Hohberg in 1943 resigned from his position in the DWB concern. Can you explain please what makes you think that Baier took over Dr. Hohberg's activities?
A I never asserted that. That might have been a deduction on my part. Hohberg, to my knowledge, was a free economic arbiter and not even a member of the SS, while Baier was an SS Oberfuehrer. Therefore, I can not judge whether Baier was Hohberg's successor or not, and with reference to Hohberg's tasks.
I do not have the possibility of doing so.
Q Can you tell me if there was a difference, particularly in the commercial law?
A I am afraid that I am not a business man. I can not tell you about that.
DR. HEIM: Thank you; no further questions.
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q I have only one question, witness. You told us on direct examination that this chart correctly represented the organization of the WVHA, referring to NO 111, and you also heard Pohl give the same testimony. Do you wish to stick to that testimony?
A I have no doubt that was the original chart which was set up by us in 1942.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: I am at the end of the evidence for the defendant August Frank. I shall introduce a document book later on if the translation is finished. I have renounced the witness Hans Stein, I believe -or rather -- Yes, I renounced the witness Hans Stein, who was granted to me. However, I understand that counsel for defendant Fanslau, to whom the witness was also granted, would like to interrogate this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we'll take our noon recess now and start with the new witness at 1:45.
(Witness excused.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess until 0145.
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1350 hours, 10 June 1947)
THE MARSHAL: Take your seats, please.
The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. Von STAKELBERG (For Defendant Fanslau) Your Honor, according to the arrangement made between defense counsel, it would now be the turn of the Defendant Fanslau. Before opening my case here I would like to recall a request made by me to the Tribunal, which I made in my opening statement. The request was, as far as Counts 1, to 3 are concerned, to drop proceedings against Fanslau because the Prosecution has been unable to provide sufficient evidence for his participation in the alleged conspiracy in war crimes and crimes against humanity, in the view of the defense counsel that is. The Tribunal has not yet ruled on that request, and I would therefore like to ask whether the Tribunal wishes to make a ruling before I open my defense?
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is of the opinion that the proof offered by the Prosecution has made a prima facie case involving a question of fact, and the motion to enter a judgment of not guilty -
THE INTERPRETER: I am afraid, your Honor, the interpreter did not quite follow. I am so sorry.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is of the opinion that the proof offered by the Prosecution has made a prima facie case involving a question of fact, and the defendant's motion, therefore, for a judgment of not guilty at this time will be denied.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Mr. President, in that case I would like to call the witness Stein in order to open the defense of Fanslau. The witness is outside. Since the witness Stein has been called on behalf of the Defendant Frank, I did not have the opportunity to announce this witness, but I do not anticipate any objections on the part of the Prosecution because I did not observe the twenty-four hour rule.
MR. ROBBINS: I have no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will bring to the courtroom Hans Stein, a witness for the Defendant Fanslau.
JOHANN STEIN, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE PHILLIPS: You will please raise your right hand and repeat after me.
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath).
JUDGE PHILLIPS: You may be seated.