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.
Satisfied?
DR. HOFFMAN: Yes.
DR. MULLER-THORGOW (Attorney for defendant Georg Loerner): May it please the Court, I would like to subscribe to what Dr. Hoffman said just now. It would appear that this is a purely private note because there is no signature, no date, and, above all, no letter heading and no file mark; in the left corner on top there are only the letters "SS Berlin". An official document of the SS WVHA would never have that sort of abbreviation. The file would always be written in full. The file number would be below that, such as the case in the next document, which is NO1288. That statement is of importance to defendant Georg Loerner because, as a matter of fact, Professor Dr. Schenk was never his subordinate. He was only formerly a member of Office Group B.
THE PRESIDENT: The fact remains that this paper was found in the official files of the SS. As we have previously ruled in connection with another document, that alone makes it admissible and the fact that it is unsigned may make it of less value or, perhaps, of no value, but the fact that it was a part of the official files makes it admissible for what it is worth. Recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHALL: All persons in the Court please take your seats.
Tribunal No. 2 is again in session.
MR. HIGGINS: Carrying on with the Prosecution's proof, I offer Document NO-1244 as Exhibit No. 45, Page 104, your Honors. This is an inter-office memorandum dated 6 September 1943 issued by Dr. Ing. Kammler, Chief of Amtsgruppe C, appointing Defendant Kiefer deputy chief of this division.
I offer NO-1016 as Prosecution Exhibit No. 46. This consists of a memorandum by Defendant Fanslau dated 1 July 1944, to the Chief of Office Group D and Staff W, requesting the submission of reports suitable as lecture material on the development of the SS and the organization and supply of the Waffen SS. The report requested, submitted for Defendant Volk, Staff W, sets out in detail the extent of the participation of Division W in economic enterprises.
I offer Document no. 498 as Exhibit No. 47.
DR. SEIDL (For Defendant Oswald Pohl): Mr. President, I object to the admissibility of this Document No. 498 as an exhibit namely due to the following reasons. At the end of this document there is a special annex, and I would appreciate if your Honors would take a look to this additional slip there. Prior to that there was a letter by the Defendant Oswald Pohl of the 19 November 1942. It is apparent that this letter by the Defendant Pohl of the 19th of November, 1942, has nothing to do with the first part of the whole document where it deals with an entirely different thing, and therefore I suggest that if the Document NO-498 is introduced as evidence this should only take place with the restriction that both documents which are contained there should be introduced separately, and particularly with reference to the first document that it be separated from the first part of the organizational chart made after the letter of the Defendant Pohl of 19 November 1942 which has nothing to do with the remaining contents of the document.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, the document has more parts which in my opinion do not belong to the organizational chart. There is a document chart here and from it one can not see what it has to do with the organizational chart, where it belongs and by whom this document schedule was set up, and also for what period of time. I therefore suggest that all these other parts which apparently do not belong to the organizational chart, if they be admitted, at least be separated and admitted in that fashion.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: On behalf of the Defendants Frank and Hans Loerner, I also object, as did my colleagues before me, to the introduction of this document. There is the first page, a description of the industrial organization of the WVHA. Then, however, comes a synopsis of the WVHA as such. And then, due to the fact that all these pages have been stapled together, one gains the impression that the Amtsgruppe A, to which my clients belonged, was a part of the industrial organization. That it was not so, will be shown later on, for which there is no time at the moment. For the time being, I object to this kind of formal stapling together of the document, which can create a wrong opinion on the part of this Tribunal.
I am of the opinion, Your Honors, that the document should be separated and the part I dealt with right now, the one referring to Amtsgruppe A, then no longer would be able to be given the inscription, "Organization of the WVHA." That is what I intended by my objection.
MR. ROBBINGS: I spoke to the research analyst, Mr. Siebe, who discovered this particular document in the WVHA building in Berlin. He said all of these pages were together. However, I am of the same opinion as the Defense Counsel, that they are separate and distinct. There is a part beginning on page 135, the letter by Pohl.
That is not a part of the same document as the preceding pages.
THE PRESIDENT: There seem to be four separate parts to this document, and we will mark them as Exhibits 47-A, B, C and D. 47-A in the English document Book will go from page 113 through page 125. That is including the words, "SS-Sturnbannfuehrer Klein." That is the last paragraph in 47-A. You will observe that a number of different men are mentioned by name - Mummenthey, Bobermin and so forth. The last one is Klein. Do you find that? That is the last of Exhibit 47-A.
Then begins 47-B, which goes through page 21 of the original document, and No. 9215, on the left. Do you find that? That is the end of 47-B.
Then the next is 47-C, page 22 of the original, page 134 of the English. It has the word, "creditors," at the top, "Register of Accounts." And the number, 230 -- one at the left, in the left-hand margin. Do you find that? That is 47-C.
And 47-D begins with "the letter of 19 November," page 135 of the English. Is that all clear now?
MR. ROBBINS: With respect to these documents, they were selected and assembled on the theory that these show very well the inter-relation of the various Amtsgruppen and of the conspiracy and collaboration that existed between and among the various documents. I would point out that these are not all of the documents which demonstrate the inter-relation, but that they are typical of the many documents which are contained in the various document books. We propose to quote from a few of the relevant documents, relevant material, and would point out at the same time that the quotations which we will give do not constitute all of the relevant material.
The first document in the Document Book is NO-2460, and I offer that as Prosecution Exhibit 48. I propose to quote only from the conclusion. This is an extract from the judgement of the International Military Tribunal, that part which declares the SS a criminal organization. The conclusion is found on page 11 of the Document Book.
"The SS was utilized for purposes which were criminal under the Charter, involving the persecution and extermination of the Jews, brutalities and killings in concentration camps, excesses in the administration of occupied territories, the administration of the slave labor program and the mistreatment and murder of prisoners of war."
I might also point out that the Court said that "knowledge of these criminal activities was sufficiently general to justify declaring that the SS was a criminal organization, to the extent hereinafter described."
I offer Document 1919-PS, on page 12 of Document Book 3, as Prosecution Exhibit 49. These are extracts from Himmler's speech at Posen to his Gruppenfuehrers, on the 4th of October, 1943, and extracts from Himmler's speech at Krakow in April, 1943. It contains the quotation which I gave in the opening statement, concerning Himmler's attitude about the Russian workers, where he said, "whether 10,000 Russian women fall down from exhaustion while digging an anti-tank ditch interests me only insofar as the anti-tank ditch for Germany is finished."
On page 14 of the Document Book Himmler speaks of the SS industrial concerns. He says on page 15:
"We have huge armament works in the concentration camps. This is the sphere of activity of our friend, SSObergruppenfuehrer Pohl. Every month we put in many millions of hours of work for armaments.
We tackle the most thankless tasks and - I must give this its due - whether in the concentration camps, in Pohl's industrial works, or outside at the offices of the Senior Executive SS and Police Officers or in the workshops of the Head Office of SS Administration, one thing is obvious: wherever we are, we are SS men."
Then the next subdivision of Himmler's speech concerning the clearing out of the Jews. Dropping down three paragraphs, Himmler says:
"We have taken from them what wealth they had. I have issued a strict order, which SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl has carried out, that this wealth should, as a matter of course, be handed over to the Reich without reserve."
I offer document NO-024, on page 27, as Prosecution Exhibit No. 50. This is a letter -- 2 letters; several letters, as a matter of fact, between three and twenty-one July 1942 -- regarding Pohl's securing foreign currency for the RSHA. In the letter on page 28, Himmler writes to Pohl asking Pohl to help him in this task with Reichminister Funk, "with whom I believe you are on good terms, and tell him for me that in addition to the great help he has already given us he could help me particularly with the activation of the work abroad for which I would be very greatful if he would give 250,000 marks in foreign currency more per month. We now receive 113,000 marks in foreign currency, but this is not nearly enough."
The next letter; Pohl says to Himmler that he has arranged for a visit with Reichminister Funk. "I do not doubt that I shall be able to arrange the matter as you wish it."
The letter on page 32: Pohl writes to Himmler, "Today I --"
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Mr. Robbins, when you say, "the next letter," might it not be better if you indicate the document?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, Your Honor; this is all part of Document NO-024. The document consists of, I believe, five letters.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: I see.
MR. ROBBINS: The letter dated 21 July 1942, which is a letter from Pohl to Himmler appearing on page 32 of the document book: Pohl writes that he was at the Reichminister for Economies, "there I talked to Undersecretary Landgrel, and then to Reichminister Funk--to each for an hour of most pleasant conversation."
And, dropping down to the paragraph number two, Pohl says, "there, after Reichminister Funk called me in, I told him of your request which you had submitted to me, and your letter of 3 July 1942.
In spite of the extremely strained conditions of foreign exchange, Reichminister Funk, without circumlocution, declared that he was ready to help us as much as possible. I should tell you, however, that the curve of our foreign currency, contrary to the curve of our foreign trade, is dropping to below zero."
This document demonstrates the close collaboration of Pohl with Himmler; also the functions of Pohl and duties outside of the WVHA. For instance, here he was helping Himmler obtain funds for the RSHA.
I offer now as Prosecution Exhibit 51, document 3868 PS, appearing on page 35 of the English document book. This is an affidavit of Rudolph Hoess regarding Auschwitz extermination camp. This was quoted from by Mr. McHaney in his opening statement, and I do not propose to read from it now.
DR. KRAUSS (Counsel for defendant Tschentscher): Your Honors, the Prosecution intends now to submit the statement by the concentration camp commander Hoess. The document book number three later on, namely, towards the end, contains a statement made by another concentration camp commander by the name of Pister; and that statement --or, rather, the statement of another administrative officer of a concentration camp by the name of Barneward,that these three witnesses are still alive. The statement partly contains certain obvious inaccuracies. The descriptions, therefore, should be clarified during a cross examination, and rectified by the Defense. It can be seen from today already that these three witnesses must be placed before cross examination by the Prosecution. I want you to consider, Your Honors, that these three statements should not be introduced as evidence, and, instead of that, to bring these three witnesses and put them at our disposal.
In spite of this, should these three statements be read, then I reserve myself the right that these three witnesses be put at our disposal for cross examination here. And I would appreciate it if the Court would do it today, namely, tell the Prosecution that these three witnesses be placed at our disposal for cross examination.
DR. SEIDL: Your Honors, I agree with the statement of my colleague. However, I wish to draw your attention to the following facts, in addition to that. The witness, Rudolph Hoess, was examined as a witness last year by the International Military Tribunal. At that time there was the possibility to examine the witness in a cross examination. Therefore, I suggest, with reference to this affidavit of the witness Hoess, that this should not be admitted; and, also, leave it to the Prosecution to choose between submitting an excerpt from the records of the International Military Tribunal with reference to this witness, Hoess, or not. With reference to the other affidavits I mentioned before--of the witnesses Barnewald and Pister--I suggest not to admit these affidavits because these witnesses can be brought here easily. At the present moment they are in Dachau. Should the Tribunal admit these two affidavits as evidence, then please only by seeing to it that this be dependent on the fact that the Prosecution bring these two last witnesses here before this Tribunal for cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it known where these witnesses are? Is it true that the three men are now in Dachau?
MR. ROBBINS: Rudolph Hoess, I know is standing trial in Warsaw. The other two, I believe, are in Dachau.
Your Honors, may I simply state for the record that under Article 7, this objection does not go to the admissibility but merely to the probative value of these affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand; but it involves a rather fundamental principle of American jurisprudence; that is, a right to be confronted by your witness and to cross examine him if he is available. It appears that the witness Hoess is not available. However, the Defense may offer in evidence the cross examination of this same witness before the International Military Tribunal. That is the best that can be done. We can not produce this man. As to the other two witnesses, we will admit these affidavits conditionally only if these two defendants are produced here and an opportunity given for cross examination. They are available; they are under the control of the American government, and it is a simple matter of transportation. This right of cross examination is a valuable one, and so long as the witnesses are accessible and can be producedthey should be. These affidavits will be admitted now, but only upon the condition that the two witnesses will later be produced and an opportunity given to cross examine them.
The witnesses referred to are -- Dr. Seidl, who are they?
DR. SEIDL: They are the witnesses Barnewald and Pister. These affidavits of these witnesses are at the end of the document book number three. That is, the affidavit by Barnewald has the document number NO-2149; and the one by Hermann Pister has the number 2327. Your Honors, we only started discussing this point because it is in factual connection with the affidavit of the witness.