THE PRESIDENT: Just about how much more do you have, Dr. Aschenauer, So we can arrange Our program for this morning?
DR. ASCHENAUER: In all, there are the documents up to Exhibit No. 64; that is, another six documents are to be introduced and one judicial notice of a document already introduced to the Tribunal
THE PRESIDENT: Yes Who will follow Dr. Aschenauer in the presentation of documents?
You, Dr. Belzer? Yes.
Very well and then will anybody else be reedy after Dr. Belzer?
DR. STUEBINGER: Dr. Stuebinger.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you will be ready. Just a moment please. Mr. Ferencz. Yes, Mr. Ferencz.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, we have a list here of all of the document books in English which have been Served on the prosecution and the list indicates that almost all of the defendants have completed document books to a certain extent. That is, some are introducing two or three books, two of which have been translated and the third of which is still being processed. in so far as they are completed. For example, if the Defendant Just has two books completed and anticipates having two more, which are now being translated, that he give us these two so that we can have a basis from to prepare our rebuttal, rather then have us wait until the last page in the last document book is done. If he can give us the book that he already has finished, I think that, will facilitate matters,
THE PRESIDENT: You have heard Mr. Ferencz' statements and the Tribunal concurs with it. We might also indicate to counsel that in the preparation of the presentation of documents that if they are going to refer to the documents that instead of reading the text a very brief condensation be already in the mind of the counsel so that he can give the idea without having to read from the document itself, because if we must sit here and listen to the reading of all these documents, naturally, it will be an interminable proceeding.
I do not mean by this, Dr. Aschenauer, that we are in any way criticizing your presentation. On the c ntrary, we think you did a very nice job in presenting your documents.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Aschenauer, before you begin, the Tribunal would like to announce that it would appreciate that all defense counsel, or as many as are available, be present when we reconvene at 1:45 (1345 hours) and all Prosecution counsel also, Mr. Ferencz, so that we can discuss just what we have before us in the way of document books and all relevant matters, so we can map out the program now for the termination of all the proceedings. Thank you. Proceed Dr. Aschenauer.
DR. Aschenauer; I now come to Document Book IV. As the first document in Document Book IV, I offer Document No. 54, as Exhibit No. 59. This is the notification in the military passport for Otto Ohlendorf of 20 November 1939. It shows that Ohlendorf at the beginning of the war was deferred from service for the Reich Group Trade, that is, that his war service was supposed to be performed in the Reich Group Trade. I quote: "The possible order on the part of the Reich Group Trade is to be complied with by you at any time in peace, as well as in war. That noncompliance with this draft is punishable. During the war reporting as a volunteer is useless, and is, therefore, to be refrained from. "Now I offer the second document of this volume, that is the No. 55, as Exhibit No. 60. It is an affidavit of Dr. Lammers, as a completion to the affidavit of 20 October 1947, which was submitted as Exhibit No. 49, and which was Document No. 28. The third document in this book with the No. 56, I offer asExhibit No. 61. First of all, I would like to correct a translation mistake. On page 11 it says under "A": "The Reichfuehrer-SS and Chief of the German Police," and not "Reich Security Main Office." This is an affidavit of Dr. Hans Ehlich, who as I have already said, who was active in a fulltime capacity from 1 February 1937 until the end of the war in the Security Service of the Reichsuehrer-SS and who since 1940 was a Department Chief in Office III, the chief of which was Ohlendorf's work. The affidavit supplements some statements of the IMT Judgment, or corrects them.
I may quote briefly: "The new Office III, SD Tuland of the RSHA as the only central office for the SD work at home didn't have any sphere of work and had no mission as far as political opponents are concerned, and it had no political function or power. It worked completely independently from the missions of the Security Police. The restriction of the missions of Office-III of the RSHA, to purely objective task of importance about the domestic field, and the avoidance of any reference of this work to any political field was the demand of Ohlendorf when he founded Office III of the RSHA. "It is, therefore determined in this affidavit that from 1939 to 1945 no combatting of political enemies and no kind of executive power waspresent. Ehlich answered, therefore, to a number of individual questions about the activity or non-activity of Ohlendorf within Office III. The last document in this volume is Document No. 57, and I offer it as Exhibit No. 62. This is an affidavit, of Heinz Wanninger, in the end Referent for general questions of organization of the RSHA. He supplements the statements in the affidavit, that Dr. Hans Ehrlich which has just been submitted treats the organizational questions of the Office of the RSHA and the Offices of Chief of Security Police and SD at home, and in the occupied territories, as well as the special position of Einsatsgruppes and Einsatzcommando in the Russian campaign, which, as militant special units, were no agencies, or offices, or parts, or branches of the offices of the RSHA, especially not the Offices III, IV, VI and VII of the RSHA. Then I have two more individual documents which have reference to the subject as to whether the struggle of the East was regarded as a struggle between two races by the defendants, or whether it was merely a matter of measures which were taken for security reasons. These two documents refute the thesis of the Prosecution, and I may hand them both to the Tribunal. I would like to offer the German copy with the document No. 62 as Exhibit No. 63, and the English copy as Exhibit No. 62-A -- or rather, as No. 63-A. Document 63 or 63A is offered as Exhibit No. 64 or 64-A. I quote:
"Top Secret. A few thoughts about the treatment of aliens in the East, We have to see to it ---"
THE PRESIDENT: Which document are you reading from now Dr. Aschenauer?
DR. ASCHENAUER: From 62. I just gave it to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, what the number have you given that?
DR. ASCHENAUER: 62, as Exhibit 63.
THE PRESIDENT: We have a document -
JUDGE DIXON: I think I have found them now.
THE PRESIDENT: What happened, that each one of the Judges got three copies of the same document. All right, proceed.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I quote: "Concerning the treatment of aliens in the East, we have to see to it that we acknowledge and cultivated many individual Ethnic groups as possible. That is, outside of Poles, Jews, Ukranians, White Russians, the Gorals, etc. If other small and isolated national groups can be found in the other places, they should be treated the same way." document submitted in the IMT, the Document No. 710-PS. I would just like to quote into the record: "Reichmarshall of the Greater German Reich. Berlin, July 1941, and the Chief of Security Police and SD, as SSGruppenfuehrer Heydrich, As a supplement to the task assigned to you on 24 January 1939, to solve the Jewish question in the form of emigration or evacuation, and to find as favorable a solution as possible I give you the order," and so forth.
DR. ASCHENAUER (continued): I am at the end of my documents. I have before me the documents handed over by the Prosecution in Case XII. As such these documents offer nothing new. They prove the knowledge of the Army, the participation of the Army, and the jurisdiction in the area of sovereignty. I don't have the intention to continue to submit these matters unless I decide to submit a trial brief with short quotations, at the time of my final plea.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Do you want any ruling on that?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Well, if the official permission would be given for this it might be good to have it in the record.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Fenercz, do you have something to say to this?
MR. FERENCZ: Not on this particular point, on the general matter.
THE PRESIDENT: You are permitted to do what you have asked, Dr. Aschenauer.
MR. FERENCZ: May it please your Honor, there are certain fundamental objections which are applicable to many of the documents offered by the defendant Ohlendorf. I refer particularly to Document Books, II, II-A, II-B in their entirety. Book II begins with the so-called expert legal opinion on the concept of notation or necessity as a defense. The other materials in Books II-A and B are offered in support of that legal opinion. We must examine these things as a whole to see if they can be admitted. If the Court will turn to page 2 of Ohlendorf's Document Book II they will find a table of contents of this one legal opinion. You will notice, your Honors, that parts A and B concern the law to be applied. These are the first 12 pages. With this we have no quarrel. The remaining 50 pages are quite another matter. They deal with the objective and subjective prerequisites concerning the facts about the Soviet War, whether it was an aggressive war, whether International law would be followed by Russia and Russian's conduct before and after 1941. It can be readily seen, your Honors, that these are matters of fact and not of law. The affiant purports to give an expert opinion on these questions of fact. Books II-A and B are extracts to support these facts.
What the affiant presents as fact is nothing less than a very clear exposition of a print of view which has nearly wreched the world. We cannot allow these matters to stand on these records as great statements of fact, These matters have already been argued and decided by the International Military Tribunal. If the Tribunal here desires to open these factual questions to re-examination we will produce evidence to the contrary. To do so, however, will entail bringing into this case many questions already considered and decided by the first International Tribunal. Part C-2 of this so-called legal opinion, this is on page 2--A of the document book your Honors, concerns the official Nazi theory of Jewry and Bolshevism and the defendant's own experience and imagination on this subject. Here gain the matter has nothing to do with law and less to do with fact and are certainly beyond the scope of any export legal opinion. opinion on maters of continental law. We will not object to Ohlendorf including in his closing statement his own subjective victor of the facts but we must not forget this trial is open to the world and will be studied by future generations. We cannot permit the distortion of very important facts disguised as expert legal opinion to remains as a permanent block unchanged and unchallenged on this record. We ask the Tribunal to consider this matter and to study these documents before making a ruling. Mr. Walton will present additional specific objections.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed Mr. Walton.
MR. WALTON: If your Honors please, if you will permit me I should like to take up the documents in the document books in the order in which they appear rather than in the order in which they were presented. I kept score but I have no guarantee it is right as far as the exhibit number is concerned and when I wrote my notes for the objections I did not have the exhibit numbers and will refer to the document by the page it appears in the document book and the name of the affiant or document as it appears in the record.
THE PRESIDENT: Once you do that there can be no possibility of error so tire recommend you follow that announced policy.
MR. WALTON: At this time, then, I wish to file certain specific objections to Documents Book I which I will take up by documents as they appear in that volume, Document #1, in this Document Book, the affidavit of Andreas Predoehl dated 9 October 1947, pages 1 and 2. The difficulties of the defendant while a student at Kiel University are immaterial to the charges of murder or membership in criminal organizations. For that reason we object, Does the Tribunal wish to rule after each objection is uttered?
THE PRESIDENT: No, the rulings will be made after we have had an opportunity to consider the objection and studying of the documents themselves.
MR. WALTON: Very well, I will continue without further interruption.
THE PRESIDENT: Please do.
MR. WALTON: Document 1-A, being a affidavit of Dr. Wilhelm Greiser. While it contains matters which tire believe to be immaterial, Prosecution does not urge an objection since it is in part a character affidavit.
Document 2, affidavit of Dr. Karl Gebhardt, dated 15 August 1947, pages 9-21 in the English text is objected to because the personal relationships between Himmler and the defendant Ohlendorf are not material to the issues in this case. Neither is a summation of Himmler's attitude toward his subordinate leaders, his morals, or his personal idiosyncrasies helpful as background material nor do they have any bearing on the issues involved. The same can be said of the affiant Gebhardt's conception of Ohlendorf's political philosophy in comparison with that belonging to Himmler. Furthermore this is a purported affidavit but, no jurat appears on the document.
Document #3, the affidavit of Karl Wolff, dated 10 September 1947, pages 22 to 25. The same objection as to Ohlendorf document 2 applies to this document. Furthermore should the Gebhardt statement and not the affidavit be accepted in lieu or in place of a character affidavit, this document is merely cummulative testimony on the same point.
This document has no jurat Document #4, the affidavit of Karl Hedrich, undated document, pages 26 to 35 of the Document Book.
It is cummulative evidence on the point of the defendant's political philosophy, his struggles -
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Walton, I don't think we are going to be concerned - I don't think the Tribunal will be particularly concerned whether the document is cummulative. If it is relevant and sheds light, even excessively on a point which the defense considers important there seems no reason why we don't take it, study it and evaluate it, especially in view of the fact, that it is now already processed. If required to go out and get more then we might consider that. And, furthermore the character of each defendant is certainly attacked and what ever he can present to show that his character is such that would preclude the criminals intention imputed to the defendant it is certainly relevant.
MR. WALTON: I can only get my interpretation and give them as my objections. What the Tribunal does is, of course, their function but I should like to go on record with these objections.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well we don't want you to gain the hope that you were succeeding in that particular argument.
MR. WALTON: I assure the Tribunal it is entirely impersonal. I merely put in the objections, the Tribunal acts on them. immaterial to the issues in this case and this document, being document #4, is also without a jurat. No date that the document was signed appears.
Document to. 5, the affidavit of Dr. Gerhard Klopfer, dated 3 October 1947, pages 36 to 38. This document is objected to on the grounds of immateriality and while it is admitted that in the course of time it may have some historical value it is, in my opinion of the Prosecution, of no value to the material issues of the case.
No jurat appears on this document.
Document 6 _ this is the affidavit of Hans Fritzsche, dated 18 August 1947, pages 39 to 41. The criminality of the SD is established by Control Council Law #10 and by judgment of the International Military Tribunal. Evidence to the contrary is immaterial. As this criminality of the SD is now a raised adjudicata matter. The mere fact that the SD under Ohlendorf was engaged in some legal activities is no guarantee that the Security Police and SD were innocent of crimes in the occupied territories of Russia. This Tribunal does not concern itself primarily with actions taken by Germans against Germans. As was said in the Medical case it is only when crimes or illegal acts are committed on Nationals of other countries does it become of concern to the family of nations. This document is also objected to because it lacks a jurate.
An unworn statement of Dore Neumann, being document #7, dated 11 October 1947. This is immaterial as to the issues in the case because this affiant only testifies to the defendant's activities In Berlin and in the RSHA. She admits she knows nothing of the SD or the Einsatzgruppe activities in Russia.
Document #8. statement of Dr. Rudolf Hauschka, dated 16 August 1947, pages 46 and 47. The defendant Ohlendorf's attitude toward German practitioners of anthropography whether tolerant or intolerant is not material to the question of his attitude toward Russian Jews, Gypsies and Communist functionaries. Charitable acts toward this affiant has no bearing on his uncharitable acts toward people in occupied territories of Russia marked for slaughter.
MR, WALTON: (continued) Document 9, statement of Dr. Elizabeth Klein dated 17 September 1947, pages 49 to 52. Prosecution objects to this document because the International political struggles of Germany and the attitude of the SD therein may be of value to the history of such movements but it is immaterial as to whether the SD was a criminal organization. This has been decided by the International Military Tribunal and the issue in this case is whether or not the chief of that organization knew of criminal acts performed by the SD organization while establishing and maintaining the security of German Armed Forces in Russia.
Document 10, statement of Dr. Hans Ehlich, unsworn, dated 20 September 1947, pages 53 to 61. The attitude and the policy of the defendant Ohlendorf toward the Germanization of and assimilation of foreigners, the difficulties he had to maintain his ideals on these questions, the antipathy had had held for Koch and Thomas and the hatred he possessed for the monopolistic attitude of I.G. Farben, are material only if the issues in this case include whether or not this defendant made enemies during his career. Such statements while of interest to a treatise on the life and times of General Ohlendorf are not material. If they are offered to establish the point that the defendant did courageously maintain his ideals in spite of powerful adversaries then these documents are cummulative and are surplusage since Prosecution is prepared to admit this last named contention.
Document 11, the affidavit of Dr. Hans Roessner dated 13 September 1947 pages 62 to 79. This is a document which points out again the resistance maintained by the defendant to his political adversaries, his efforts in behalf of the cultural life of Germans, the scientific study, and achievement of German scientists, the religious policy of the state and the his relations with Nazi hierarchy. It is immaterial to SD activities in the occupied eastern territories of Russia.
Document 12, affidavit of Dr. Erhard Maeding, dated 22 September 1947, pages 80 to 90.
In the English translation the first page is missing. The Prosecution was not put on notices as to the full contents of the document but is willing to waive this technical objection if the contents are of the same general nature as the remaining 9 pages. The economic Spy system on the leading personalities in the German State was right and proper as the German people wanted it. The right of any country to make its own laws and to conduct its own international affairs is not an issue here. The same question of acts proven in Germany, whether legal or illegal, is of no concern to this Tribunal. It is when these or other acts result in the crimes against humanity or war crimes and are visited on peoples outside of the German border they do concern the rest of civilized nations of the world. Neither are the routine procedure practices in the SD, for Germany questions of material value for the Tribunal in this case nor are the relations between the SD with the Ministerial Department and gauleaders. The defendant's efforts in behalf of State reform for Germany is not material to the issue of criminal activities against the civilian population or Russian occupied territories.
Document 13, Statement of Dr. Halmut Seydel dated 3 September 1947, pages 92 to 98. Prosecution objects to the introduction of this document because the functioning of legal institutions in Germany and the proposed reforms therein are immaterial. The attempted counter action of the trend away from a constitutional state inside of the borders of Germany, the pointing out of Party corruption, etc., is of no material value to this case. The author in his closing paragraph - I cannot call him an affiant because it is unsworn - the author in his closing paragraph specifically states and I quote: "I did not know of the assignment in Russia." The Prosecution does not object to the introduction of Document 14 which is a statement of Sigrid Barlen, B-a-r-l-e-n, dated 3 October 1947, pages 100 to 102.
Document 15, this is a purported deposition of Dr. Franz Hayler, pages 103 to 121, In the English copy it is unsigned. The authority for taking the oath is not shown, no witnesses' certificates appear, the date when the deposition was taken is not shown, the authority before whom the answers were made is not shown.
If it is a deposition, no cross interrogatories were over put to the witness. If it is purported to be an unsworn statement no signature is attached. This is cummulative evidence of the fight inside of Germany against monopoly. As to the struggles with Himmler, as to collaboration with Professor Jessen, as to the defendant's opposition to Nazi hierarchy and other Internal German State matters none of which appear to be pertinent to the issues in the case. The interrogatee disclaims in his answers to questions 6 and 7 any knowledge of the details of the defendant's work in the SD and his participation in the Russian campaign.
MR.WALTON: To ducment #16, being the affidavit of Dr. Gustav Schlotterer, dated 4 October 1947, the Prosecution offers no objection.
Document 17 the affidavit of Dr. Heinrich Malz, dated 30 September 1947, pages 124 to 126. This is cummulative to the point of the defendant's attitude and ideology on International Germanic affairs. It is Immaterial to SIPO and the SD in Russia.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:45.
(The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 14 January 1948).
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: We really feel very much complimented at seeing everyone present today.
Mr. Walton, would you mind our taking up the matter of the document books with the counsel who have all appeared?
MR. WALTON: Not at all, sir, except that I am sorry to state that I was unable to find Mr. Glancy during the lunch hour. Dr. Hochwald has gone to call his office. Mr. Ferencz, I don't know why he was not here because he was sitting here when you made your announcement, but if the Tribunal will allow the two elder members of the prosecution to stand in lieu thereof, we can proceed with the business of the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. WALTON: As soon as the phone calls go through I feel certain they will be here. They are in the building.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, would you then went to proceed with your-
MR. WALTON: Not at all, unless the Tribunal feels that the full prosecution should be here.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it isn't necessary that they should all be here, but I think they should be rather well represented because they may went to make some observations. The thing that I am concerned with is if I don't take care of these attorneys at once they are going to slip out one by one, and I want to have them here in unison. So you may proceed for ten minutes or so and if they have not come by that time then we will take up the matter of the document books.
Dr. Hochwald, do you know whether the other two intend to be here?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, Mr. Glancy is ill today.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I am sorry.
MR. HORLICH-HOCHWALD: And Mr. Ferencz will be presently before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, fine.
MR. WALTON: The next document to which the prosecution wishes to enter its objection is in Document Book I, being the same document book which was being discussed prior to the noon recess. Document No. 18, which is the statement of Luitpold Charlemayer, dated 21 August, 1947, Pages 127, 129, and which is again on the point of the personal feud between Himmler and Ohlendorf, again objected to on the grounds as being immaterial to the issues involving the activities of the defendant in the East. Document No. 19-
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Walton, I see Mr. Ferencz is here now, so let's take up the matter of the document books, if you don't mind. and we would like to suggest that even where counsel does not have all his document books but does have one or more, that he present those so that at least we can be working on them, awaiting the remaining ones which might still be in the process of being translated and mimeographed. I think it might be well to go down the list beginning with Ohlendorf, which, of course, we are now disposing of.
Heinz Jost. Now, this list indicates that we have Document Books I and II. Are there any more?
DR. SCHWARZ: Yes, your Honor, I have finished the Document Books I and II and can submit them if the Tribunal desires so. Document Book III is being translated at the moment, and a fourth document book unfortunately I was not able to complete yet, because two affidavits were only received during the last few days, but I shall hand in the document book by tomorrow for translation.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Erich Naumann.
DR. KLENNERT: Dr. Klennert for Naumann. Your Honor, I have four document books which I handed to the translation department. As far as I know only one of them has been returned as yet. Three further books are still to come, to be translated.
THE PRESIDENT: Are they already in the translation department, II, III, and IV?
DR. KLENNERT: Yes, II, III and IV are in the translation department.
THE PRESIDENT: You are ready to proceed with No. I?
DR. KLENNERT: Yes, with No. I.
THE PRESIDENT: Otto Rasch. Of course, we know that you are hoping that you won't have to submit any document books.
DR. SURHOLT: Yes. I have prepared one document book, but since no ruling was made about my application as yet, I have not handed it in in order not to burden the translation department too much.
THE PRESIDENT: Nor to burden the attorney too much.
DR. SURHOLT: I have finished my work so far.
THE PRESIDENT: One of the marks of wisdom of a lawyer is never to do more work than he has to.
DR. SURHOLT: One should not contradict wisdom.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, very well said. The attorney for Schulz.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: DR. Durchholz for defendant Schulz.
I have already submitted Document Books I, II and III. I have already submitted these three documents books, and I have another few documents which I shall probably receive back from the translation department at the end of the week. May I mention here that there is one document among them concerning the witness Karl Heinz Bent. The affidavit by this witness I have already completed a month ago, but after having summoned the witness at the time I wanted his signature. Suddenly the witness had been taken away from Nurnberg, and today I was told that tomorrow or the day after he would come back again so that I will be able to get his signature then. This was a delay which is not my fault.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, which books are you ready to present now?
DR. DURCHHOLZ: I only have a few documents which I shall submit as Document Book No. IV as soon as I have them all.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Attorney for the defendant Six.
DR. ULMER: Ulmer for Six.
mimeographed and translated already, that I could submit at any time now. Document Books II and III, I handed in. II has already been mimeographed in the German and it is just being translated into English. In order to speed this up I myself have given an English translated to the translation department, and the translation department will only have to review it. My Document Book No. III I have not received back mimeographed yet in German.
THE PRESIDENT: You say that you did some of the translating youself?
DR. ULMER: I had them made.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, but you did it to assist the translation department?
DR. ULMER: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you seem to be contradicting the wisdom of Dr. Surholt, doing more work than an attorney is required to do.
DR. ULMER: Your Honor, I might have a fourth document book but this will only consist of three or four documents. I am expecting these to come in within two days. That is only a small matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Thank you very much, Dr. Ulmer. Dr. Heim. Oh, he is not here. I haven't see Dr. Heim for a long time. Where is he?
DR. KUHR: DR. Heim is in the Tribunal No. VIII, where his client is just being on the witness stand at the moment. He, therefore, cannot appear. As his deputy I would like to make the following statement. Your Honor, Document Book I for Blobel has already been submitted. Document Book II we received back this morning from the translation department, and Mr. Hochwald informed me that the prosecution has the Document Book II for Blobel. We have in addiction a supplement to Document Book II of Blobel but this has not yet been received back from the translation department. It is possible that we shall hand in supplementary documents. and we shall try to have the translation speeded up. Submission of further documents is not intended.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then, you would be ready to present Document Books I and II.
DR. KUHR: Document Book I has already been submitted, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, you are ready to present II then.
DR. KUHR: Document Book II I could present. However, the supplement cannot be submitted as yet because it has not yet been translated.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Dr. Lummert for Blume.
DR. LUMMERT: Your Honor, my Document Book I has already been submitted by me at a previous date. The rest of my documents will be contained in Document Book II. I shall be able to submit the rest of the documents at the latest at the beginning of next week. They have already been translated.
THE PRESIDENT: Are they all contained in one book, No. II?
DR. LUMMERT: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And you expect to have that book ready no later than Monday?
DR. LUMMERT: Monday at the latest. I can then present it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Dr. Handry for Sandberger. Oh, Dr. -- I see, yes.
DR. STEIN: My name is Stein, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that is right. You constantly change your name.
DR. STEIN: Your Honor, I already submitted two document book. Both are still in the translation department. I also have a supplement to Document Book No. I which is being prepared, and I shall be able to hand in this book in about two days. Apart from that I am expecting from abroad about two or three further affidavits which I was unable to get before because I did not know the addresses of these foreign witnesses. At the moment I cannot give a definite date when I shall be able to submit the document books, since I do not know when the documents will be translated. I am not able to submit Document Book I already now because the matter is overlapping. There are various affidavits in both books which I wont submit in a proper presentation. I, therefore, ask for a term, I ask to be given time until the beginning of next week provided that the books are translated by them, and apart from that I would like to reserve the right that if they should not be completed by then in the translation that I Shall be able to submit the document books at a later date, but may present them to the Tribunal earlier.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Dr. Stein. You understand the situation, and I am sure that you will cooperate to the utmost of your ability.
DR. STEIN: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is deputizing for Dr. Gawlik? Oh, you are. Very well.
DR. KLENNERT: Two document books for the defendant Seibert have been handed in. They are still in the translation department. When the translation will completed I do not know, but I assume that this will be this week. Apart from that a supplement of a few documents was prepared and was either given to the translation department today or will be given to them today.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Dr. Mayer for the defendant Steimle.
DR. MAYER: Dr. Mayer for the defendant Stimle. III for the defendant Steimle.
THE PRESIDENT: And will that complete your documentation?
DR. MAYER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Thank you, Dr. Mayer. Dr. Fisch for Biberstein. Let's see, you have presented one document book. Do you intend to have any more?
DR. FISCH: No further documents. your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Mayer for the defendant Braune.
DR. STEUBINGER: Steubinger for Braune.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. STEUBINGER: I have two document book and one supplement which I have prepared. The first document book is completed and can be presented. The second document book is translation already, but it is still in the sorting out department, in the filing department, and the prosecution has not been able to have a copy as yet. The same applies to the supplement, part of which has only been translated. Document Book No. II I shall submit as soon as I am given the English translation.
THE PRESIDENT: That could be rather quickly, couldn't it, maybe tomorrow?