from military or police organizations, they already understood normal military duties. The course of training given them at the assembly points, consisted of lectures and speeches on their new and special functions. After this orientation the Gruppen received their equipment, and were to be committed to action. Events were not long delayed which brought these organizations to their assigned tasks, and their missions were thoroughly understood from the highest ranking leader of a Gruppe down to the lowest SS Man. Russia. The Einsatzgruppen, already alerted, fell in behind the marching columns of the Wehrmacht as an integral part of the machine constructed for swift and total war. Within a space of three days the training grounds in Saxony were empty and all Einsatzgruppen had entered upon the performance of their various missions. territory in the early months of this aggression. By December 1941 the Eastern front extended from Leningrad on the North to the Crimean Peninsula in the South. The Baltic States, White Ruthenia and most of the Ukraine were in German hands. In this wide land the Einsatzgruppen moved behind the lines of combat. They were deployed from north to south in alphabetical order across the east of Europe. as the proof is adduced. And it will be seen that they followed like methods in executing their common mission. Identity of purpose and of top command were reflected in a common pattern of performance. Some victims were disposed of casually. Political functionaries were shot where found. Prisoners of war who fell in the category of opponents of National Socialism were handed by the Wehrmacht to the Einsatzgruppen and killed.
These swift methods were also applied in disposing of Jews, gypsies and persons falling under that vague denomination "undesirables." But these latter classes of humans marked for slaughter were large - too large to be disposed of by casual assassination. Their very numbers demanded that they be killed en masse. Accordingly, we find plans and methods adpated to this necessity. to 800 men. Four of these small forces totaling not more than 3,000 men killed at least 1,000,000 human beings in approximately two years' time. These figures enable us to make estimates which help considerably in understanding this case. They show that the four Einsatzgruppen averaged some 1,350 murders per day during a two year period; 1,350 human beings slaughtered on the average day, 7 days a week for more than 100 weeks. That is 337 murders per average day by each group of 500 to 800 men during the two year period. All these thousands of men, women and children killed had first to be selected, brought together, held in restraint and transported to a place of death. They had to be counted, stripped of possessions, shot and buried. And burial did not end the job, for all of the pitiful possessions taken from the dead had to be salvaged, crated and shipped to the Reich. Finally, books were kept to cover these transactions. Details of all those things had to be recorded and reported. extermination operation, an Einsatz unit rounded up those elements of the population marked for slaughter. This was accomplished by special orders to report and by manhunts. It was followed by concentration of the victims under guard to be transported to a place for execution or at the abbatoir itself. In accomplishing roundups a common deceit was widely practiced: those who were to die were told to report for "resettlement" - hope was held out to those who had none in fact, and who awaited certain death. The methods of extermination varied little. Mass shooting, the commonest means of slaughter, was described with classis simplicity by Herman Graebe, a German civilian, before the International Military Tribunal.
Graebe was in charge of a building firm in the Ukraine. May I read from his statement:
"I walked around the mound, and found myself confronted by a tremendous grave.
People were closely wedged together and heads.
Some of the people shot were still moving. Some were were still alive.
The pit was already 2/3 full. I estimated that it contained about 1,000 people.
I looked for the man who did the shooting.
He was an SS-man, who sat at the adge of the narrow end of the pit, his feet dangling into the pit.
He had a tommy gun on his knees and was smoking a cigarette.
The people, lying there, to the place to which the SS-man directed them.
They lay down in front of the dead or injured people; some caressed those who were still alive and spoke to them in a low voice.
Then I heard a series of shots.
I looked into the pit and saw that on top of the bodies that lay before them.
Blood was running from their necks.
I was surprised that I was not ordered away, The next batch was approaching already.
They went down into the shot.
When I walked back, round the mound I noticed another truck-load of people which had just arrived.
This time it included sick and infirm persons.
An old, very thin woman with while two people held her up.
The woman appeared to be paralyzed.
The naked people carried the woman around the mound. I left with meters away from it.
Some of them were still alive; they looked firm who stood around.
A girl of about 20 spoke to me and asked me to give her clothes, and help her escape.
At that moment we I moved away to my site.
10 minutes later we heard shots from the vicinity of the pit.
The Jews still alive had been ordered to throw the corpses into the pit; - then they had themselves to lie down in this to be shot in the neck."
gasses in enclosed trucks or vans. Here again the victims were induced to inter these death machines by the promise that they would be transported to other areas for re-settlement. As the van left the leading area it was filled with deadly fumes. A few minutes later, when the van reached the disposal point, the corpses were unloaded into prepared excavations which became unmarked mass graves.
These, then, were the usual methods used by the Einsatzgruppen. May I now briefly detail some of their activities. ing what it had been doing. The report gave the total of 121,817 persons killed. The Commanding Officer stated:
"To our surprise it was not easy at first to set in motion an extensive pogrom against the Jews.
Klimatis, the leader was noticed from the outside.
During the first pogrom in the consisting of about 60 houses.
During the following nights, approximately 2,300 Jews were made harm, less in a similar way."
Sandberger, arrested all male Jews over 16 in its area and with the exception of doctors and the Counsel of Elders, they were all executed. The defendant Strauch commanded Einsatzkommando 2. Six months after they began operations, they reported a total of 33,970 executions. The Commissioner General of White Ruthenia had the following to say :
"During detailed consultations with the SSBrigadefuehrer Zenner Dr. Juris Strauch, we found that we had liquidated approximately 55,000 Jews in White Ruthenia during the last 10 weeks.
In the endangering the allocation of labor in any way."
1942 when they reported that 15,000 Jews were shot in Tschwerwen. The report pointed out that these acts created a feeling of insecurity and even anxiety in the population of White Ruthenia and that it was impossible to estimate the consequences of such measures. At another time while this Einsatzgruppe was under Jost's command, it reported that it had executed 1,272 persons including those too aged and infirm to work and political leaders. The report adds that 14 of this number of more than 1,000 persons slaughtered were either guilty of misdeeds or were criminals.
The proof will show, we believe, that this proportion of only 2% of the victims shot for crime is not unusual.
The Defendant Nuemann commanded Einsatzgruppe B. In Minsk this Einsatzgruppe had rounded up all make inhabitants and put them in a civilian prison camp. By careful screening, with the help of the Secret Field Police, it was able to liquidate over a thousand Jews. In Lithuania, a local commando of this Gruppe reported that 500 Jews were being liquidated daily. The report also stated that nearly half a million roubles in cash "which belonged to Jews who were subject to special treatment were appropriated as belonging to the enemies of the Reich and confiscated." By the middle of November 1941, Einsatzgruppe B could report a total of 45, 467 executions. These executions were broken down as follows: In reporting further executions in the civilian prisoners camps in Minsk, Einsatzgruppe B stated that another 733 civilian prisoners were liquidated. The comment made concerning these executions is:
"All the persons executed were absolutely inferior elements with a predominate mixture of Asiatic blood. No responsibility could be assumed if they were left in the occupied zone." B. In one of his affidavits he says:
"I carried out one execution in the course of my duty.
similar number were executed in Minsk ....in both occasions a in front of it and shot with carbines.
About 10 people were dead.
Coups de grace were not necessary."
Eugen Steimle, the defendant, commanded Sonderkommando 7A. In one of his affidavits he tells us that he had been reprimanded for not shooting women and children in his mass executions. His reports will indicate that the reprimand was not without effect. and he tells us:
"During the time I was Kommando Head of the Kommando 7B, Bryansk.
The people to be executed were handed over to my unit by the local Commandant.
The corpses were temporarily buried in the snow and later buried by the army.
The valuables and Six did not vary from this standard pattern. Under the significant heading, "Executive Activities", this group reported in the first days of November.
"As to purely executive matters, approximately 80,000 persons occupation of Kiew; it was carried out exclusively against Jews E Even though approximately 75,000 Jews have been liquidated in this a possible solution of the Jewish problem.
Although we succeeded, all Jews have indeed disappeared.
But when after a certain periof executed Jews."
The killing of 33,000 Jewish inhabitants of Kiev in only two days stands out even among the ghastly records of the Einsatzgruppen. It was the Defendant BLOBEL, who with his unit under the command of the Defendant RASCH, accomplished this massacre which nearly defies human imagination.
Einsatzgruppe C received high praise for its activities from the Commander of the 6th Army High Command, Generalfeldmarschall von REICHENAU. This ruthless, mass killing shamed some of the German witnesses, and the Einsatzgruppe had to report that "Unfortunately it often occurred that the Einsatzkommandos had to suffer more or less hidden reproaches for their consequent stand on the Jewish problem." which was marked for extermination. They were only the most helpless victims. Therefore, Einsatzgruppe C stressed the point of the political sources of danger by reporting:
"Even if an immediate hundred percent exclusion of the Jewry danger.
The Bolshevistic work depends on Jews, Russians, Georgians, Armenians, Poles, Lartians, Ukrainians; the population.
In this situation, the goal of a political police of the Jews."
Einsatzkommando 5 was commanded by the Defendant SCHULZ. Only half a year after this Einsatzkommando had begun its activities, it was able to report a total of 15,000 executions. It was reported that the liquidation of insane Jews represented a particularly heavy mental burden for the members of Schulz's Einsatzkommando, who were in charge of this operation. Nor were the non-Jewish inmates of insane asylums spared. Einsatzkommando 6 killed 800 of them in one asylum alone. The commander of this unit, at a later time, was the Defendant BIBERSTEIN. Before he became leader of Einsatzkommando 6, he was a Protestant Minister - and under his aegis two to three thousand helpless people were murdered, and he himself supervised executions which were carried out by his unit by means of a gas-van.
The Headquarters Staff of Einsatzgruppe D is in the dock. The Commander was the Defendant Ohlendorf and his Deputy was the Defendant Schubert, A sub-unit of Ohlendorf's command, Einsatzkommando 12, was commanded by the Defendant Nosske. A third unit of Einsatzgruppe D, Sonderkommando 10/B, was led by one Persterer who is now deceased. Persterer's Deputy was the Defendant Ruehl.
During the first nine months of Ohlendorf's year in command of Einsatzgruppe D, this force destroyed more than 90,00 human beings. These thousands, killed at an average rate of 340 per day, were variously denominated Jews, gypsies, asiatics, and "undesirables". Between 16 November and 15 December 1941, this Einsatzgruppe killed an average of 700 human beings per day for the whole thirty day period. The intensity of the labors of Einsatzgruppe D is suggested by an April 1942 report upon its work in the Crimea, which states:
"The Crimea is freed of Jews. Only occasionally some small groups are turning up, especially in the northern areas. In cases where single Jews could camouflage themselves by means of forged papers, etc. they will, nevertheless, be recognized sooner or later, as experience has taught." In ordering these massacres Ohlendorf and his men were not without scruples.
"It was," he said, " my wish that these executions be carried out in a manner and fashion which was military and suitably humane under the circumstances. For this reason I personally inspected a number of executions, for example, executions which were carried out by Kommando 11B under the direction of Dr. Werner Braune, executions by Kommando 11A under Sturmbannfuehrer ZAPP in Nikolajew, and a smaller execution by Kommando 10B under the leadership of Alois PERSTERER in Ananjew. For technical reasons ( e.g. because of road conditions) it was not possible to inspect all mass executions. Insofar as I was prevented from Inspections for personal reasons, I ordered members of my staff to represent me at these. I remember that SCHUBERT inspected an execution which was carried out by Kommando 11B under BRAUNE's direction inDecember 1941 in Simferopol.
The only people whom I generally assigned to inspections were, except for SCHUBERT, Willi SEIBERT and Hans GABEL." to Berlin as, "very difficult" because "reports about actions against Jews gradually filtered through from fleeing Jews, Russians, and also from unguarded talks of German soldiers." But these difficulties apparently increased the determination of Einsatzgruppe D. On 18 February it reported to Berlin:
" By the end of February the combing-throughof the occupied Crimea will have beenfinished. Certain important areas in towns in particular are being regularly rechecked. The search for isolated Jews who have up to now avoided being shot by hiding themselves or by giving false personnel data, was continued. From 9 January to 15 February more than 300 Jews were apprehended in Simferopol and executed. By this the number of persons executed in Simferopol increased to almost 10,00 Jews, about 300 more than the number of Jews registered. In the other Kommando areas as well, 100-200 Jews were still disposed of in each instance." The International Military Tribunal reached the conclusion from the evidence then before it that:
"Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police and SD operating behind the lines of the Eastern Front engaged in the wholesale massacre of Jews.... Commissars, Jews, members of the intelligentsia, fanatical communists and even those who were considered incurably sick were classified as 'intolerable', and exterminated......These units were also involved in the widespread murder and ill-treatment of the civilian population of occupied territories. Under the guise of combatting partisan units, units of the SS exterminated Jews and people deemed politically undesirable by the SS, and their reports record the execution of enormous numbers of persons." The brief details I have recounted indicate the character of the proof to come. It is for such crimes as these that we invoke the jurisdiction of this court.
If it please Your Honors, Mr. Ferencz wil conclude the opening statement.
MR. FERENCZ: Jurisdiction of the Court Council Law No. 10, a quadripartite enactment made pursuant to these agreements, authorize the creation of this court. These Military Tribunals, established by the United States as agencies to administer Law 10, are in essence and in fact International Courts. towns, but the rights the defendants violated belong to all men everywhere. These rights may be vindicated by any nation, alone or in concert with others. The nationality of the victim and the time and place of crime do not impugn this jurisdiction. We find this law both in opinions of the Permanent Court of In ternational Justice and the practice of states in military offenses.1 The permanent court has held that states have legal power to determine any criminal matter as long as such legal action is not prohibited by international law.2 Where conduct menaces the universal social order, there can be and has been no prohibition on the right of courts to act. No law has ever prohibited the trial by any court of crimes such as we shall here disclose. crimes. International jurisprudence soon gave States the right to punish these violators regardless of the victim's nationality or the location of the crime. This applied in time of war or peace. It has long been accepted that a belligerent may punish members of enemy forces in its 1. Cowles, Universality of Jurisdiction of War Crimes.
Alif. Law Rev. June 1945 2. SS Letus (France vs Turkey) Judgment No. 9, Series A, No. 10.
Cited in Cowles, op. cit. pp 178-180 custody who have violated the laws and customs of war.
1 The jurisdiction exercised by military courts trying offenses against the laws of war has never been territorial. Sir Hartley Shawcross, the British prosecutor at the International Trial, pointed out that:
"The right of humanitarian intervention on behalf of the rights of man trampled upon by a State in a manner shocking the sense of mankind has long been considered to form part of the law of nations".2 German law professors too declared this in their writings.3 The jurisdictional power of every State extends to the punishment of offenses against the law of nations "by whomsoever and wheresoever committed".4 It is, therefore, wholly fitting for this Court to hear these charges of international crimes and to adjudge them in the name of civilization. committed Crimes against Humanity. The same acts we have declared under Count I as Crimes against Humanity are alleged under Count II as War Crimes, The same acts are, therefore, charged as separate and distinct offenses. In this there is no novelty. An assault punishable in itself may be part of the graver offense of robbery, and it is proper pleading to charge both of the crime. So here the killing of defenseless civilians during a war may be a war crime, but the same killings are part of another crime, a graver one if you will, genocide - or a Crime against Humanity. This is the distinction we make in our pleading. It is real and most significant. To avoid at the outset any possible misconception, let us point out the differences between the two offenses.
1. Ibid p. 206 2. Transcript p. 813 3. Bluntschi, "Das Moderne Volkerrecht der Civilisierten Staaten" 4. Wheaton, cited in Cowles, op cit.
supra p. 191 customs of war.
By their very nature they can effect only nationals of a belligerent and cannot be committed in time of peace. The Crime against Humanity is not so delimited. It is fundamentally different from the mere war crime in that it embraces systematic violations of fundamental human rights committed at any time against the nationals of any nation. They may occur during peace or in war. The animus or criminal intent is directed against the rights of all men, not merely the right of persons within a war zone. At a recent conference for the unification of penal law, the definition of crimes against humanity was a leading topic. There it was the Counselor of the Vatican who said:
"The essential and inalienable rights of man cannot vary in time and space. They cannot be interpreted and limited by the social conscience of a people or a particular epoch for they are essentially immutable and eternal. Any injury ....done with the intention of extermination, mutilation, or enslavement, against the life, freedom of opinion... the moral or physical integrity of the family.....or the dignity of the human being, by reason of his opinion, his race, caste, family or profession, is a crime against humanity."1 hostilities, may violate basic rights of man and simultaneously transgress the rules of warfare. That is the intrinsic nature of the offenses here charged. To call them war crimes only is to ignore their inspiration and their true character.
Control Council Law No. 10 clearly lists war crimes as offenses constituting violations of the laws and customs of war, and Crimes against Humanity as a distinct offense unrelated to war.2 The London Charter restricted the jurisdiction 1. Report of the VIIIth Conference for the Unification of Penal 2. Art. II, 1(b) and (c) of the International Military Tribunal to Crimes against Humanity connected with Crimes against Peace or War Crimes.
1 This restriction does not appear in the Control Council enactment, which recognizes that Crimes against Humanity are in international law, completely independent of either Crimes against Peace or War Crimes. To deny this independence would make the change devoid of meaning.2 In this case the crimes occurred while Germany was at war.
This is a coincidence of time. The plans for persecution and annihilation were rooted deep in Nazi ideology and would have been effected even had their agressions failed to erup in open conflict. This was shown by their actions in Germany itself, in Austria and in Czechoslovakia. 1. Charter of the IMT, Art. 6(c) 2. The opening statement by the Prosecution in Case No. 5, U.S.
v. Flick et al, pp. 56-73, contains a detailed exposition of which we have charged.
It accuses these defendants of atrocities and offenses, including persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds, murder, extermination, imprisonment and other inhumane acts. Each of these is recognized as a crime by Law No. 10. That murder and extermination violated the criminal laws of all civilized nations even the defendants will not be heard to deny. gave no warning to these accused that their attacks against ethnic, national, religious and political groups infringed the rights of manking? We do not refer to localized outbursts of hatred nor petty discriminations which unfortunately occur in the most civilized of states. When persecutions reach the scale of nationwide campaigns designed to make life intolerable for, or to exterminate large groups of people, law dare not remain silent. We must condemn the motive if we would affect the crime. To condemn an evil and ignore its cause is to invite its repetition. The Control Council simply re-asserted existing law when naming persecutions as an international offense. Germany itself had been their champion. In the Berlin Treaty of 1878, Germany declared that religious differences could not be used to exclude a person from his civil or political rights. Following the first World War, in the German-Polish Convention of 1922, Germany obtained the legal protection for her ethnic minorities throughout Poland. The German Government bound itself under German Law to guarantee the complete protection of the life and liberties of all inhabitants, without discrimination as to their birth, nationality, language, race or religion.1 Germany agreed that these were obligations of international 1. Reichsgesetzblatt, Part II, 1922, No. 10, dated 15 May 1922, Art.
COURT II-A CASE IX concern1 and were basic laws which could not be superseded by any official, order, or any other law. 2 In the Permanent Court of International Justice Germany obtained recognition of an guarantees by international Law of her minority rights in Poland. 3 Indeed, it was under the guise of protecting the rights of minorities that the Nazis Invaded Czechoslovakia. So mindful of their own rights; no callous of the rights of others. gave ample warning to the world. It should come as no surprise to these defendants that they may now be judged under international law for acts which were always known as crimes. Count Two of our Indictment accused these defendants of violations of the laws and customs of war. The acts particularized in Court One, in addition to constituting Crimes against Humanity also violated rules for the conduct of hostilities and are therefore charged as a distinct offense. The standards of conduct for an occupying Power were established by the Rules of war. They were obligated by international agreements to protect family honor and rights, to respect the person and property of non-combatants as well as their freedom of religion. Prisoners-of-war were to be treated as prescribed by humane codes adopted by all civilized nations. The evidence will disclose how the defendants in this case defied these laws, how unarmed civilians were methodically liquidated, how 1. Ibid - Art. 72 2. Ibid - Chap. I i. 3. Opinion No. 6 and 7. Permanent Court of International Justice - Series A, No. 6, p. 4-41, dated 25 August 1925;Series A, No, 7 p. 4-107, dated 25 May 1926.
COURT II-A CASE IX prisoners-of-war were casually Selected for extermination, and it will also show wholesale plunder and destruction devoid of all military necessity. All of these acts are war crimes as recognized in Law No. 10. declared that the SS, the Gestapo, and the SD were criminal organizations. In reaching their decisions the Court made frequent reference to the deeds of the Einsatzgruppen. These activities contributed largely to the Tribunal's finding that membership in the organizations named, constituted crime. We have charged that all of these defendants Were members of one or more of these criminal groups on or after 1 September 1939. Proof of such continuing membership supports conviction under Count Three of our Indictment. There will be little doubt that each one knew the criminal nature of the band he joined. If the law condemns any man for these participations none can bear greater guilt than the defendants in this case.
COURT II-A CASE IX how the Einsatzgruppen were organized and their ideological foundation in Nazi Germany. We have suggested that the chief significance of this case lies in the protection by law of fundamental human rights and we have described how those rights were systematically violated. We also seek here to hold a handful of men responsible for crimes they alone could not possibly have committed. What are the standards by which we test their guilt? the mass executions committed by their units. In those cases they are clearly responsible under standards known and accepted by all. In other cases it may not be shown that these defendants specifically ordered or directly participated in the crimes of their Kommandos. Here guilt is just as great. of his organization. We cannot believe that any member of a group engaged in murders by the thousands could fail to know its criminal intent. We do not undertake the burden of showing any defendant's foreknowledge of the precise contours of the crime committed. No where on earth does the law impose such a burden. command in an extermination unit. By virtue of his post he had the power to order executions. It is not conceivable that these grave deeds Were independent acts of misguided subordinates. They were bound by law, if not by conscience, to refrain from such activity. That they knew, no doubt, as well as all men know it. They COURT II-A CASE IX will not here deny their knowledge of the Lord's Commandment, well known to all who wear the soldier's uniform.
Laws which impose on him who takes command the duty to prevent, within his power, crimes by these in his control-these laws, declaratory of common morality rest lightly on the honorable soldier. He feels no restraint in the rule that old men, women and children shall be protected as far as military necessity permits. It is this duty legal and moral, to prevent, to mitigate, and to disavow the slaughter of innocents, that all the defendants flagrantly violated. The purpose of the laws of war to protect civilian populations and prisoners would largely be defeated if a commander could with impunity neglect to take reasonable measures for their protection. This was declared by the Supreme Court of the United States 1 and relied upon by Military Tribunal I in the case against German doctors. 2 of these defendants carried with it the power and duty to control their subordinates. This power, coupled with the knowledge of intended crime and the subsequent commission of crime during their time of command imposes clear criminal responsibility. that some word of explanation deges in as if to salve the conscience of the executioner. "So and so many persons were shot." the report will read "because they were too old and infirm to work." "this or that ghetto was liquidated, to prevent an epidemic," "so many children were shot, because they were mentally ill." 1. Application of Yamashita, 66 Supreme Court 340-347 2. Judgment of Military Tribunal, Case No. 1, p. 70.
Such lean tokens cannot exculpate these wrongs. The Euthanasia doctrine based on a Hitler order scorning pre-existing law spurred the annihilation program. Military Tribunal I, in discussing euthanasia laws stated:
"The Family of Nations is not obligated to give recognition to such legislation when it manifestly gives legality to plain murder and torture of defenseless and powerless human beings of other nations." 1 Law No. 10 specifically declares that certain acts are Crimes against Humanity "whether or not in violation of the internal law of the country where perpetrated."
The defendants here can seek no refuge in the Law. of a superior does not free him from responsibility for crime.
It may be considered in mitigation. This is the law we follow here, and is notinnovation to the men we charge. Even the German Military Code provides that:
"If the execution of a military order in the course of duty violates the criminal law, then the superior officer giving the order will bear the sole responsibility therefore. However, the obeying subordinates will share the punishment of the participant:
(1) If he has exceeded the order given to him or (2) It was within his knowledge that the order of his superior officer concerned an act by which it was intended to commit a civil or military crime or transgression."
2 1. Military Tribunal 1, Case No. 1, p. 50. 2. Reichsgesetzblatt 1926, No. 37, p. 278, Article 47, (cited in Jackson Opening). of helpless people constitued crime?
Moral teachings have not so decayed that reasonable men could think these wrongs were right. 2 million Jews were murdered by the Einsatzgruppen and other units of the Security Police.1 The defendants in the dock were the cruel executioners, whose terror wrote the blackest page in human history. Death was their tool and life their toy. If these men be immune, then law has lost its meaning and man must live in fear.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess and reconvene at 11:20 for the purpose of hearing the proof to be presented by the Prosecution.
We will repeat what we said on arraignment day: That the Defense must he prepared to proceed immediately upon the termination of the presentation of proof by the Prosecution.
DR. ASCHENAUER: My name is Aschenauer, Defense Counsel for the Defendant Ohlendorf. already handed to the Tribunal on the 26th of September, 1947. Several Defense Counsel in Case 9 have already informed the Tribunal that the assumption on the part of the Tribunal, that the Defense compared to that working in other trials was better supplied with detail and that therefore no break was necessary, does not correspond to the facts. in which they stated that Prosecution material was available in Room 119, but unfortunately it transpired that nothing was available in that room. It was stated in this letter that Room 119 had been mixed up with 219, but even a search for material in Room 219 wasn't 1. Official Text p. 292.