you pointed out, is a matter which will be seen by the Court and which will be given weight in judging the probative value of this particular exhibit. The second objection made, however, is that this photostat copy may not be a true copy of the original. Either because...........
Pardon me, I'd understood it as being an objection that there may have been some error in copying the original. However, I see that defense counsel does not agree with me.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Bergold, just what is your objection? The Tribunal had also understood it that way.
DR. BERGOLD: No, I merely say that the photostat is surely correct, but sometimes one can only judge a doubtful document if one looks at the original and see if the original in itself is a closed document or doesn't consist of several reports. The photostat is, of course, always correct. The photostat is unimpeachable. My request is merely to submit the original. Then we can decide whether we can maintain the objection or not.
MR. FERENCZ: I would like to point out that the certificate which goes with every exhibit certifies that it is a true photostatic copy of the original. In most other cases it has not been necessary to present the original. However, in order that these defendants are convinced that they have been given every opportunity, I have had the originals brought here from Berlin. They are available in my office and defense counsel are welcome, at any time, to compare the photostatic copy with the original and I will be very glad to correct any errors.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. That answers it very completely.
DR. BERGOLD: I thank the prosecution for their graciousness.
MR. FERENCZ: The Operational Situation Report of 29 October 1941, found on page 27 of Document Book #1, which is the report we have just been discussing, shows the breakdown of Einsatzgruppen, Einsatzkommandos and Sonderkommandos, as charged in paragraph 4 of the Indictment, and as shown on the chart now before the Court.
We come now to the purpose or function of the Einsatzgruppen. There was a definite reason why the Nazis considered it important, before the Russian campaign, to organize these special groups. There were special aims in the Nazi program which could not be fulfilled by the army alone and which would require battalions of SS men. Throughout the reports, letters, orders, affidavits, and other documents which will be presented here, the Court will find one persistent and ghastly thing:
Execution of Jews because they were Jews; execution of political functionaries because they were Communists; execution of Gypsies because they were regarded as anti-social; and execution of others because their arrogant murderers considered them inferior. Einsatzgruppen was.... What the function was. Document NO 4762 is a copy of portions of the judgment and is found on page 34 of Document Book #1. Page 39 of the German copy. It reads as follows:
"The murder and ill-treatment of civilian populations reached its height in the treatment of the citizens of the Soviet Union and Poland. Some four weeks before the invasion of Russia began, special task forces of the SIPO and SD, called Einsatz Groups, were formed on the orders of Himmler for the purpose of following the German armies into Russia, combatting partisans and members of Resistance Groups, and exterminating the Jews and communist leaders and other sections of the population. In the beginning, four such Einsa tz Groups were formed, one operating in the Baltic States, one towards Moscow, one towards Kiev, and one operating in the south of Russia."
And further the judgment says:
"The plan for exterminating the Jews was developed shortly after the attack on the Soviet Union. Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police and SD, formed for the purpose of breaking the resistance of the population of the areas lying behind the German armies in the East, were given the duty of exterminating the Jews in those areas."
NO 4762 as Prosecution Exhibit 8: NO. 2620-PS, found on page 35 of Document Book 1, and offered as Prosecution Exhibit 9, that - I quote. It's found on page 40 of the German book:
"Himmler stated that an important part of our task consisted of the extermination of Jews - women, men and children - and of Communist functionaries." formed, as stated in paragraph 3 of his affidavit, Document NO. 4145 which appears on page 37 of Document Book #1, and which is now offered as Prosecution Exhibit 10, as follows. Page 43 of the German book.
"During the setting-up of the Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos during the months of May/June 1941 I was at Dueben. During June, Heydrich, Chief of the Security Police and Sd, and Streckenbach, Head of Office I of the Reich Security Main Office, held lectures on the duties of the Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos. At this time we were already being instructed about the tasks of exterminating the Jews. It was stated that Eastern Jewry was the intellectual reservoir of Bolshevism and therefore, in the Fuehrer's opinion, must be exterminated. This speech was made to a small, selected audience. Although I cannot remember the individuals present, I assume that many of the Einsatzgruppen chiefs and Einsatz and Sonderkommando chiefs were present. I heard another speech by Heydrich in the Prinz Albrecht Palais in Berlin, in the course of which he again emphasized these points." addressed a letter to the chiefs of all Einsatzgruppen concerning the Jewish question. This letter, which is found on page 40 of Document Book #1, which is Document EC 307-1, is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 11, Page 48 of the German book.
point, I would like to point out the practice of other Tribunals. When there were objections of defense counsel to particular documents, the practice was to permit the prosecution to present its case in chief and then give the defendants every opportunity in their presentation of their case to point out errors in the documents, to emphasize different paragraphs of the document, and to make such corrections as they see fit.
DR. ASCHENAUER (Defense Counsel for defendant Ohlendorf): Your Honor, that was not the usage before other Military Tribunals.
I object to this document. It does not at all refer to the subject of the Indictment before this Tribunal. The document merely refers to the commitment of Einsatzgruppen in Poland. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Einsatzgruppen in Russia. In Russia, in 1939, there were no German Einsatzgruppen yet.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, this is exactly the type of objection I refer to. When the Court has a document before it, the defense counsel may attack its probative value or the reason it is being Introduced. I would like, however, to continue introducing the document, as planned, without interruption, and the defense may make their objection at any time in the presentation of their case and point out any facts which may impeach the document at that time.
May I proceed?
THE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel certainly may object to the authenticity or relevancy of a document at the time it is being presented, because, if it is obviously irrelevant and obviously not authentic, there is no reason why the Tribunal should take up its time in even considering it. But, as to minor details - not necessarily minor details - but, as to itmes in the document itself which can easily be presented after the prosecution has terminated its case, I would suggest that that be the procedure to be followed. understand that he objects to its relevancy. Is that right, Dr. Aschenauer?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, I'd like to hear you on the relevancy, Mr. Ferencz.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, this document is a letter sent to all the chiefs of Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police.
THE PRESIDENT: All of them?
MR. FERENCZ: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Regardless of locality or geography?
MR. FERENCZ: The heading is: "To the Chiefs of all Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police. Re: The Jewish question in the occupied territory."
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that seems to be sufficiently broad to cover the categories into which the defendants fall.
MR. FERENCZ: If Your Honor please, I think I can anticipate the objection here. The date is September, 1939, and the question may arise, how is it related to these defendants? We are introducing this document not to show what any of these defendants did, but to emphasize what the Gruppen were doing, what the Chief of the Security Police and SD was doing. The same man who was Chief of the Security Police and SD when these defendants were in command, and the report shows that he discusses the terrible measures planned in the final solution of the Jewish question. It certainly seems relevant to me to see what the man who ordered these defendants to go into combat was talking about shortly before he did so, on a question which is very relevant to this case.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, the objection made by the prosecution can be removed quite easily, be merely referring to a Prosecution Document itself. That is, Exhibit #8. That is the excerpt which was quoted before COURT II-A CASE IX from the judgment of the IMT.
This disproves the opinion that has just been expressed by the prosecutor now,
MR. FERENCZ: That is correct, Your Honor. This is another letter from a different source, further substantiating the point we are making. as such, it seems to me to be very relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: As background material it seems quite relevant to the case. We have introduced in other trials, speeches by Himmler which may not have been made directly to the defendants involved but which certainly indicated the pattern of activity of the SS group involved.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, I understand the point of view, Your Honor, but this document is of a certain importance for us because Einsatzgruppen are addressed in this document. It is addressed to the Chiefs of all Einsatzgruppen. Therefore, the great possibility exists that the Einsatzgruppen which are under indictment here should be confused with these Einsatzgruppen. The Einsatzgruppen which are indicted here did not yet exist on the 21st of September, 1939. To be sure, they had not even been planned yet and, for that reason, I understand our objection that this must be cleared up because, otherwise, the impression is created from the very beginning that in this document, this type of Einsatzgruppen is referred to.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there anything in the document which would indicate the life of the order? Would it not be continuing until such time as these Einsatzgruppen came into being,and, therefore, would apply to all Einsatzgruppen?
DR. BERGOLD: No, Your Honor. They are quite different types of Einsatzgruppen. They never had anything to do with these here. They had quite a different organization and structure. Therefore, this order could never be applied to these.
DR. GAWLIK (Defense Counsel for Haumann & Seibert): Your Honor, I raise another objection. This concerns the document. It is a simple copy which does not bear any signature whatsoever. It isn't signed at all. This is apparent from the photostat. Therefore, I have to raise an objection to the authenticity of this document. It is only certified for the correctness of the copy "Major, General Staff" and it does not have a handwritten signature or initial.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, the document is offered by the prosecution in order to show what Heydrich's thoughts were about the final solution of the Jewish question. That is all. We ask the Court not to consider the document for any other point. That being so, I don't think it worth while to delay at this time to discuss the authenticity of the document. This, as every other document we shall introduce, will bear the certificate that it is a true copy of a captured document. Therefore, it is admissible if half is missing, or if the signature is missing, or whatever condition it may be in. We offer it for that simple point.
THE PRESIDENT: With the limitation that the prosecution has now volunteered, the document will be received and given such probative value as it will merit in the final consideration of the case.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I ask you to reconsider this decision because a document cannot have any probative value which is unsigned. It is completely valueless. This original document reads this way. "Signed: Signature, written with typewriter. A copy has merely been made of it. It's completely out of the ordinary.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, lest this problem continue COURT II-A CASE IX to arise, I think it worth while to take a moment to answer this objection.
signed personally by Heydrich. They copy has typed in "Signed: Signature". Immediately under that: "Certified True Copy, Signed: Major, I.G." This is obviously a copy made by the Germans themselves of a true copy and that is why it is being introduced.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, the situation is not this way. I don't object that Heydrich didn't sign it, but it would have to be signed by whoever made out the certified copy. Namely, the Major in the General Staff, but even this major did not sign it. It says literally "no signature" and literally is typed in. "Signed: Signature" and this was written with typewriter and this is completely unusual. The initials of the major would have to be present or the signature of the major. And this document could have been written in any way and has not the slightest probative value. And my objection isn't that it is not the intials of Heydrich, but there are no initials at all, not even of the person who made up the certified copy. Up above it says "copy" and down below "Signed" with typewriter. There is no such thing.
THE PRESIDENT: If counsel will let the Tribunal have the photostat during the recess period, we will render a decision definitively when we reconvene at 1:50. May I have that now?
We would ordinarily have reconvened at 1:45, but since we have gone five minutes over the period, it will be 1:50. Ten minutes to two.
Now what page is that?
MR. FERENCZ: Page 40 of the document book.
(A recess was taken until 1350 hours, 29 September 1947) (The Tribunal reconvened at 1350 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: The certificate which accompanies Exhibit 11, Document EC-307-1, indicates that the document was found in German archives, records and files captured by Military Forces under the command of the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Forces. Since the document was found in the German archives, that fact in itself would argue against spuriousness or forgery because since the document would appear to be detrimental or inimical to the interests of those who possessed it, it is scarcely possible that one would hold in his possession a forged document against his own interests. Therefore, under the rules of procedure, the exhibit will be accepted for whatever probative value the Tribunal will give to it eventually in consideration of the entire case.
You may proceed, Mr. Ferencz.
MR. FERENCZ: Thank you. function of the Einsatz Gruppen and had just introduced Document EC-307-1 where Heydrich emphasized that the total measures planned and the final aim were to be kept strictly secret, and that the measures planned required the most thorough preparation both from the technical and economic points of view. The defendant, Ohlendorf, in his affidavit, which was offered this morning as Prosecution Exhibit 5, stated in paragraph 6 which is on page 22 of the English document book and page 25 of the German document book, and I quote:
"The Einsatzgruppen had the following assignments: they were responsible for all political security tasks within the operational area of the army units and of the rear areas insofar as the latter did not fall under the civil administration.
In addition they had the task of clearing the area of Jews, communist officials and agents. The lastnamed task was to be accomplished by killing all racially and politically undesirable elements seized, who were considered dangerous to the security." I and offered as Proseuction Exhibit 12, is a directive issued on 11 November 1942 by the Reich Commissioner for the Eastern Administration. This document made it clear that the carrying out of executions, especially the liquidation of Jews, was the task of the Security Police and the SD. Heydrich on 23 April 1942 sent to Ribbentrop a monthly report on Einsatz Gruppen activities. This is Document NO2662 found on page 48 of Document Book I and is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 13. It is on page 46 of the German document book. Here under the heading of "Executive Operations" the report has two separate sections dealing with the actions taken against Jews and Communists. ment Book I as Prosecution Exhibit 14. This is the infamous Operational Order No. 8 from Heydrich, Chief of the Security Police, issued to all Einsatz Gruppen in July 1941 describing his duties in purging prisoner-of-war camps. I quote:
"I am enclosing directives for the purging of the prisoner camps which contain Soviet Russians."
"I request that the chiefs of the Einsatzgruppen try to execute the purge of the transit camps with their own forces as far as possible." segregate civilians and prisoners of war to select those considered politically intolerable.
Enclosure 2 states and I quote:
"Above all it is necessary to find out all important officials of the State and the Party, in particular professional revolutionaries, the officials of the Comintern, all influential party officials of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and its subdivisions in the central committees, the regional and district committees, all People's Commissars and their deputies, all former political commissars in the Red Army, the leading personalities on the central and intermediate level of the State administration, the leading personalities of the economy, the Soviet-Russian intellectuals, all Jews, all persons found to be agitators or fanatical Communists."
Then follows:
"In order to carry out successfully the measures indicated in these instructions the Kommandos will request the camp authorities to surrender the prisoners in question.
"Executions must not be carried out in or near the camp. If the camps are in the Government-General close to the frontier, prisoners are to be moved to former Soviet territory, if possible, for special treatment." things in their Judgment stating:
"Soviet prisoners of war in prisoner-of-war camps in Germany were screened by Einsatzkommandos acting under the directions of the local Gestapo officers. Commissars, Jews, members of the intelligentsia, 'fanatical Communists' and even those who were considered incurably sick were classified as 'intolerable' and exterminated." cution Exhibit 15. It is found on page 64 of the document book, page 82 of the German copy.
already been introduced, swore in an affidavit he made in 1945, Document No. 2542-PS found on page 65 of the Document book and offered as Prosecution Exhibit 16, that Himmler had given orders to execute captured Russian political commissars and Jewish soldiers. In the prisoner-of-war camps on the Eastern front Einsatzkommandos had to segregate the prisoners for candidates for execution. This affidavit was read in part in the Judgment of the International Military Tribunal. Document NO-4763 is a part of the Judgment and I offer it as Prosecution Exhibit 17. It states and I quote from page 67 of the document book, page 86 of the German document book:
"There existed in the prisoner-of-war camps on the Eastern Front small screening teams (Einsatzkommandos), headed by lower ranking members of the Secret Police (Gestapo). These teams were assigned to the camp commanders and had the job to segregate the prisoners of war who were candidates for execution according to the orders that had been given, and to report them to the office of the Secret Police."
A few months after issuing Operational Order No. 8, the Chief of the Security Police sent another important order to the Einsatzkommandos. This is Document NO-3421found on page 68 of the document book and offered as Prosecution Exhibit 18. It is on page 87 of the German book. It states -
DR. ASCHENAUER: Dr. Aschenauer for defendant Ohlendorf. 3421. The Prosecutor has just explained that that was an order to the Einsatzkommandos in the East. Looking at it at first it shows that the Einsatzkommandos in the East were not addressed here. They only meant the Einsatz kommandos which had assembly points in the individual prisoner-of-war camps in the Reich.
This document is not connected with the question raised by the Prosecution. For that reason I ask you to sustain my objection.
THE PRESIDENT: What is your view on this, Mr. Ferencz?
MR. FERENCZ: If it please Your Honor, what the Defense Counsel has pointed out is something which would go to the probative value of the particular document. I do not agree with his interpretation of it. Of course, that is a matter for the Court to decide. As such, we request that the Court accept this document as an exhibit. If as the Defense Counsel contends, it has no value in. this case, the Court will certainly recognize that and can discard the document.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, I did not talk about the probative value but only about the distributor. On page 2 of the document it reads:
"To all Main Offices of the State Police, information to the Reichsfuehrer-SS and Chief of the German Police, to the Chief of the SIPO and the SD, to the Chiefs of the Amt I, II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII, to the Departments IV D 2, IV D 3 and IV foreign workers, to the Group Leader IV D, SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Weinmann, to all higher SS and Police Leaders, to all Inspectors of the SIPO and the SD, to the Commander of the SIPO and the SD, to the Inspector of the concentration camps, to all Commanders of concentration camps."
That is the distribution list. All these offices were informed about the Order. Only the chiefs of the Einsatzkommandos in the East were not informed about it. For that reason I do not understand what this document has to do with the presentation of the Prosecution. The document is irrelevant. For that reason I ask you not to accept it.
I do not want to mention anything about the contents.
THE PRESIDENT: The mere fact that it is not addressed to the Einsatz Gruppen of itself would not be a valid objection because in the very nature of things in unfolding the history of this operation, we will need to have documents other than those which are addressed directly to the defendants; so that of itself would not be a sufficient objection. If, however, you can show that the contents of the document in no way affected the defendants, then that would be another matter and that would go to the probative value.
DR. ASCHENAUER: In that case, Your Honor, I want to postpone it until I present my evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Judge Speight calls to my attention on page 68 the sentence which reads;
"The surplus copies attached are to be distributed to the leaders of the Einsatzkommandos."
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, I also found this sentence but the sentence does not refer to the Einsatzkommandos in the East but to the Einsatzkommandos of the SIPO and SD concerning the concentration camps in the Reich. That is a question we wish to examine when we present out evidence.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, since we are on this point, I would like to point out, too, that in the heading it makes reference to Operational Orders 8 and 9. This is on page 68 of the document now before you. I have just read part of Operational Order 8. I refer the Tribunal back to page 56 of the document book which is Operational Order No. 8. There it gives the distribution list again and since Defense Counsel has seen fit to read the entire list in the second document, I will read the entire distribution list or part of it at least in the first document which is referred to in the second, and it says:
"To the Einsatzgruppe A, Sonderkommando Ia, Sonderkommando Ib, Einsatzkommando II, Einsatzkommando III, Einsatzgruppe B, Sonderkommando VII a, Sonderkommando VII b, Einsatzkommando VIII, Einsatzkommando IX, Einsatzgurppe C, Sonderkommando IV a, Sonderkommando IV b, Einsatzkommando V, Einsatzkommando VI."
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Ferencz, the document will be accepted and admitted for such probative value as will be determined later.
MR. FERENCZ: Yes, sir.
DR. STVEBINGER: Dr. Stvebinger for defendant Werner Braune. this document 5414. At the bottom of page 6 -
THE PRESIDENT: Which one are you referring to? Which one are you referring to?
DR. STVEBINGER: Document No. 3414.
THE PRESIDENT: What page is that in the American document book?
DR. STVEBINGER: I only have the German one in front of me. Page 67 in the German document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. What is the objection?
DR. STVEBINGER: This document bears at the bottom of page 6 the stamp "Higher State Police, Secret State Police Office." I wish to point out that no such stamp existed ever. No "Higher State Police" in that sense never esisted.
MR. FERENCZ: May 7 point out, Your Honors, this is completely collateral. The Court has the document before it end can test the authenticity of the document.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is overruled and the Prosecution will continue.
MR. FERENCZ: Another top secret order deals with the same subject. It is Document NO-3422 found on page 71 of the document book and now offered as Prosecution Exhibit 19. I will read a few extracts:
"Enclosed please find the directives for the purging of the prisoner-of-war camps and transit camps containing Soviet prisoners of war and civilian prisoners in the Rear army area; for your information and observance (see Enclosure 1).
"In particular I order that the operations order number 8 and 14 as well as the supplementary ordinance issued to them be destroyed immediately in case of danger."
Further on page 75 it states;
"The chiefs of the Einsatzgruppen for their zone of operation will submit to me monthly brief reports on the activity of the Sonderkommandos according to the pattern laid down for the activity reports of the Sonderkommandos."
On page 76 it states:
"In agreement with the commanding officers of the rear army area (district commanders for prisoners of war), the operations of the Sonderkommandos have to be regulated in such way that the segregation is effected as unobtrusively as possible and that the liquidations are carried out without delay and at such a distance from transit camps and villages as to insure their not becoming known to the other prisoners of war and to the population." every Kommando represented in the dock. ment book is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 20. This is on page 107 of the German book. This is an operational situation report stating that:
"Directives given by the Reich Main Security Office Liquidation of State officials and of Party officials took place in all mentioned towns of White Russia; Jews were dealt with according to orders in the same manner.
The individual numbers of executions has not yet been established." book and page 109 of the German copy is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 21. This is an Einsatzgruppe report dated the 14th day of January, 1942, and stating on page 83, page 114 of the German book:
"Efforts are being made to purge the Eastern territory of Jews as completely as possible. Shootings were carried out in such a way as to attract as little public attention as possible." impelled to execute those whose political opinion, race or religion differed from their own. Thus, in Document NO3340, German document book page 119 and found on page 86 of Document Book I, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 22, Einsatzgruppe A reported that they had to shoot 140 persons near Leningrad, some of them for "membership in the Jewish race."
121 of the German document "book, is now offered as Prosecution Exhibit 23. Here, Einsatzgruppe C reported their principal duty, apart from liquidating the party organizations and cleansing the country of Jews, was combatting partisans. This indicated that the destruction of the Communist party and the Jews was regarded as a routine matter by them. Einsatzgruppe D reported in Document NO-3139, page 123 of the German document book, found on page 91 of the English document book, and offered as Prosecution Exhibit 24; that they had solved the first part of the Jewish question when the Jews had been registered and herded into a few streets. The Einsatzgruppen knew in advance what they were going to do. The basic orders were given to them before the invasion of Russia, and in accordance with those instructions the Einsatzgruppen were able to plan their future operations. This is illustrated by the report of 22 August 1941, Document NO-2842, found on page 93 of the document book and page 127 of the German book, and offered as Prosecution Exhibit 25. Here the plans of the Einsatzgruppe C were disclosed. The plans reported were to round up the Jews in certain villages, liquidate them, and raze the villages to the ground. When the Einsatzgruppen wrote of their plans to destroy all the Jews, they meant exactly what they said. An old woman or an infant of Jewish blood were subjects fit only to be shot. NO-3644, found on page 100 of the document book, page 134 of the German book, and offered as Prosecution Exhibit 26, and I quote:
"Rasch informed us that Obergruppenfuehrer Jeckeln had been to see him and had transmitted an order by the Reichsfuehrer-SS, implying that all Jews were to be shot. Only in cases where Jews were required for purposes of labor, consideration as to their executions should "be given. Jewish women and children were, if necessary, to be shot as wall in order to prevent acts of revenge."
without foundation, as can he shown in a secret letter sent from the Eastern front on the second of December 1941 by the Inspector of Armaments. This letter, Document 3257-PS, found on page 103 of the Document Book, 136 of the German document book, and offered as Prosecution Exhibit 27, was addressed to Gen. Thomas, chief of the Industrial Armament Department in Berlin. The Inspector, who was chiefly disturbed by the annihilation of laborers needed for production, had the following to report, and I quote:
"The attitude of the Jewish population was anxious, obliging from the beginning. They tried to avoid everything that might displease the German administration. That they hated the German administration and army inwardly goes without saying, and cannot be surprising. However, there is no proof that Jewry as a whole, or even to a greater part, was implicated in acts of sabotage. Surely, there were some terrorists or saboteurs among them, just as among the Ukrainians. But it cannot be said that the Jews, as such, represented a danger to the German armed forces..."
DR. ASCHENAUER (Counsel for defendant Ohlendorf): Your Honors, I beg your pardon, but I have to interrupt. I must object to this document. This document 3257 does not bear any signature also nothing can be seen from the document as to its origin. It says the Ukrainian Inspector--therefore, it is nothing but a paper. The document does not show by whom it was sent, or whether it was sent off. Therefore, for that reason I contest the authenticity of this document and ask you not to accept it.
MR. FERENCZ: The objection made is that the document is not signed. There is no requirement that documents be signed in order to be admissible into evidence. The document is a captured German document introduced exactly as we found it. The Court is able to judge its authenticity and to judge its probative value. I don't feel that any further comments are necessary.