May it please the Court, pursuant to written notice, which we filed some days ago in proper form, we wish to notify both the Tribunal and defense counsel that tomorrow morning at the beginning of the session the prosecution will call a witness, one Eberhard Staud, former member of the Reich Ministry of Justice, who will testify relating to matters concerning the defendant Alstoetter.
THE PRESIDENT: That is at nine-thirty tomorrow morning, you mean?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, Your Honor.
I continue now with further documents of the same nature as that described generally this morning with relation to concentration camps. These documents, as I have said, were previously introduced into evidence in the International Military Tribunal's case, The document read this morning was an official U.S. Army investigation into the Mauthausen Concentration Camp. I wish to refer now to a similar report concerning the Flossenburg Concentration Camp. This document will be offered as a matter of judicial notice in its entirety for the reason that we are able to furnish copies of it in German to the defense as well as to the Court.
This document is entitled "Headquarters, Third United States Army, Judge Advocate Section, War Crimes Branch". It is dated 21 June 1945. Subject: Report of Investigation of War Crimes. To: Commanding General, Third United States Army.
We note from Paragraph II that the matters investigated concerned the Flossenburg Concentration Camp. We note in Paragraph III, under Proceedings, that the testimony of all witnesses in the course of this investigation was secured through the use of an interpreter after the witness had been sworn.
On Page 2 we find the Summary of Facts:
"Concentration Camp Flossenburg was founded in 1938 as a camp for political prisoners. Construction was commenced on the camp in 1938 and it was not until April 1940 that the first transport of prisoners was received.
From this time on prisoners began to flow steadily into the camp. Flossenburg was the mother camp and under its direct control and jurisdiction were 47 satellite camps for male prisoners and 27 camps for female workers. To these satellite camps were supplied the necessary prisoners for the various work projects undertaken."
Skipping to the middle of the next paragraph:
"This labor was performed completely underground and as a result of the brutal treatment, working and living conditions a daily average of 100 prisoners died. To the one camp Oberstaubling" - which I take it to be a satellite camp of Flossenburg - "700 prisoners were transported in February 1945 and on the 15th of April 1945 only 405 of these men were living. During the 12 months preceding the liberation Flossenburg and the branch camps under its control accounted for the death of 14,739 male inmates and 1,300 women. These figures represent the deaths as were obtained from the available records in the camp; however, they are in no way complete as many secret mass executions and deaths took place. In 1941 an additional stockade was added at the Flossenburg camp to hold 2,000 Russian prisoners. From these 2,000 prisoners only 120 survived.
"Flossenburg Concentration Camp can best be described as a factory dealing in death. Although this camp had in view the primary object of putting to work the mass slave labor, another of its primary objectives was the elimination of human lives by the methods employed in handling the prisoners.
"Hunger and starvation rations, sadism, housing facilities, inadequate clothing, medical neglect, disease, beatings, hangings, freezing, hand hanging, forced suicides, shooting, etc. all played a major role in obtaining their objective. Prisoners were murdered at random, spite killings against Jews were common. Injections of poison and shooting in the neck were everyday occurrences. Epidemics of typhus and spotted fever were permitted to run rampant as a means of eliminating prisoners.
Life in this camp meant nothing. Killing became a common thing, so common that quick death was welcomed by the unfortunate ones."
Skipping to the next paragraph:
"The system set up at this camp seemed to be one of mass elimination of the prisoners caused by devious moans. Starvation diets wilfully designed to produce death within a few months played a major role. Typhus and spotted fever were encouraged as a means of disposing of many. There were innumerable executions, mistreatments, beatings, flogging to death, which continued up until the time this camp was overrun by our forces. Mass hanging took place. Generally, the persons hanged were stripped naked. Of times they were beaten before hanging till the unfortunate victims begged for immediate hanging to ease the pain. At first the SS men in charge of the hanging were given extra rations for each hanging. Later on the hangings became so numerous that the extra rations were stopped. Hanging a person by his wrists with a heavy barrel suspended from his ankles was another method of execution, This caused the person's insides to be torn up and he died. On Christmas 1944 a number of prisoners were hung at one time. The prisoners were forced to view this hanging. By the side of the gallows was a decorated Christmas tree and as expressed by one prisoner, 'It was a terrible sight, that combination of prisoners hanging in the air and the glistening Christmas tree.'" Skipping to the last paragraph:
"Many thousands were tortured and killed by every known method. New methods of brutal punishment and torture killing were devised by certain members of the camp who became particularly known for their sadistic methods."
Skipping to the paragraph labeled "Conclusions" at the bottom of page 4:
"Flossenburg Concentration Camp, Germany, was the scene of every type and form of Nazi brutality and atrocity committed upon the unfortunate individuals who happened to he sent to this camp. Practically every nationality of Europe was at sometime or another represented in this camp.
The majority of prisoners, however, were Russians and Poles. No line of demarkation was made between sexes. Men, women, and children were executed in the most brutal fashions."
We offer as Exhibit 413 this entire document for judicial notice.
JUDGE BRAND: Major Wooleyhan, will you perhaps exchange the copy that you have given to me.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Certainly.
JUDGE BRAND: This is almost illegible.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Would you please hand the Justice the copy which I read from.
JUDGE BRAND: I don't want to take the official copy.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No, that is not the official copy, Your honor. It is marked, is it not, with a pencil marking; the one I read from was marked.
JUDGE BRAND: This is much better. This is all right.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The last two documents to which we have referred were each respectively concerned with Mauthausen and Flossenburg. We turn now to the document which we will offer in evidence. It is document No. 2605-PS. It was distributed to defense counsel yesterday afternoon. However, in view of the fact that there are only a couple of hours difference before the expiration of the twenty-four hour rule, and since I am able to supply copies in both the English and the German now, I am hoping the defense counsel will waive the couple of hours difference.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no objection heard.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Distribute please, these German copies to the defense counsel, and the interpreters, and the English copies to the Bench.
This is a sworn affidavit that is offered in evidence in its entirety. However, I wish to read a few brief excerpts from it. On page 2 the affidavit begins as follows: "Dr. Rudolph Kastner, being duly sworn deposes and says: I was born in 1906 at Kolossvar, Rumania, solicitor and journalist, residing at Chemin Krieg, 16 Pension Sergey, Geneva. Now temporarily at 109, Clarence Gate Gardens, London.
I was in Budapest until November 28, 1944; as one of the leaders of the Hungarian Zionist organization I not only witnessed closely the Jewish persecution, dealt with officials of the Hungarian puppet government, and the Gestapo, but also gained insight into the operation of the Gestapo, their organization and witnessed the various phases of Jewish persecution. The following biographical data of mine might be of interest." And skipping now to page 8 of this document, at the bottom half of the page: "The particular officer who directed the deportations from some particular country had the authority to indicate whether the train should go to a death camp or not, and what should happen to the passengers. The instructions were usually carried by the SS--NCO escorting the train. The letters "A" or "M" on the escorting instruction documents indicated Auschwitz (Oswiecim) or Majdanek; it meant that the passengers were to be gassed."
Skipping a line: "Regarding Hungarian Jews the following general ruling was laid down in Oswiecim", which is Auschwitz," and children up to the age of 12, older people above 50, as well as the sick, or people with criminal records (who were transported in specially marked wagons) were taken immediately on their arrival to the gas chambers. The others passed before an SS doctor who on sight indicated who was fit for work, and who was not. Those unfit were sent to the gas chambers, while the others were distributed in various labor camps."
Skipping now to page 9, third paragraph: "In the first half of November 1944 about 20,000 Jews were taken from Theresienstadt to Auschwitz and were gassed, on instructions from Aichmann. As far as I could ascertain this was the last gassing process."
I offer this document in evidence as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 414 in its entirety, with particular reference to remarks which I noted as being pertinent to the Auschwitz concentration camp.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it desired to have this become part of any document book?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I would suggest, Your Honor, it be made part of Document Book IV. Before introducing those documents, I have just mentioned -- I beg your pardon, is that accepted?
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Before offering the last three exhibits, I said that those exhibits, although they don't mention on their face any of the defendants in the dock, that we would link them to said defendants. To be very brief, the documents just presented relate to every defendant in this case who was in the Reichsministry of Justice at any time from the middle of 1942 until 1945. In view of the Ministry's policy and working agreement with the SS to transfer prisoner inmates to the concentration camps, that agreement whereby, and how, and by whom it was done, as far as the defendants in this case are concerned, is already in evidence, particularly with respect to the concentration camps of Mauthausen, Flossenburg and Auschwitz. It was this policy of the Ministry of Justice to send people of all nationalities to a fate described in these last three documents.
Your Honors, with respect to this chart of the concentration camps on the wall, at this time the Prosecution request of the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the concentration camps names and locations as specified on that chart under Ordinance No. 7, as a matter of common knowledge, and we may, if desired, submit a photostat of that chart as an exhibit when it can be processed.
THE PRESIDENT: Under what particular language of that Section 9 or 10, of No. 7 do you think this charge comes?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, I submit that this chart comes within the phrase, "Common knowledge." "For matters of common knowledge", as set forth in the judicial notice paragraph of Ordinance No. 7.
DR. HAENSEL: Dr. Karl Haensel for the defendant Joel. I wish to object against the use of this document, or the acceptance of this document. It is not a captured document, but it is a map which was made after the collapse of Germany, against which detailed objections still may be made.
The action in which the concentration camps are pictured is not according to the real conditions, for if one looks at this map one could assume that a much larger knowledge existed about the number of concentration camps in Germany then which actually existed. Besides, the document in no way shows the date for which it applies, as the organization of concentration Camps was in a continuous state of fluctuation and development, so that one can only come to understand the manner in which these concentration camps were distributed over the entire Germany and occupied territories, if one also supplies the dates for which that map has been made.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: In brief reply to the objection of the defense counsel, I feel it necessary only to repeat the manner in which I first offered this chart or map. I offer this map for the judicial notice of the Tribunal for only two things, one, the names of the concentration camps portrayed thereon, and, two, their geographical location. We are not concerned with the organization of the concentration camps, dates, statistics, or anything else other than the names and geographical locations. If the defense has any objection to that, I would like to hear it.
DR. HAENSEL: We have to stick to the principle of the best available proof. What the representative of the Prosecution has said now can be proved by documents that arc documents which do not admit any doubt with a list of the camps, and with a definite identification to their location. Such proof is to be referred to not in a map which is not authentic and has been prepared afterwards.
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem that, strictly speaking, there is no authentication of this map. The man who made it can testify concerning it, or maybe it is not amiss to suggest that there may be hundreds of men who could look at it and say that it is a correct representation of locations. That is all you are seeking to prove, and so I think we should conform to the laws of evidence rather strictly. Above all things, we are concerned with a fair trial here.
JUDGE BRAND: May I suggest--this is a personal suggestion--the rejection of the map as it is at the present time unauthenticated does not mean that this Tribunal can not or will not take judicial notice of the facts of common knowledge.
JUDGE BRAND: As far as they are of common knowledge, regardless of maps.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: And, further, with respect to whatever effect the map's display in the courtroom these past two days may have had, we might like to point out that there have been no objections to the names or geographical locations thereon.
JUDGE BRAND: It might be helpful to the Tribunal as to certain of the names there if some witness who knows European geography better than we do would tell us in what country some of these camps are. I assume that we know where Dachau is judicially without anybody telling us.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Does Your Honor recall the pointing out of the geographical locations of Mauthause, Flossenbuerg, and Auschwitz the other day? With regard to the rest of them, if it is desired, we will have testimony.
MR. KING: We wish to proceed at this time with the introduction of several documents that, for one reason or another, were either not presented at the time the documents to which they belong were presented or for the reason that they were not included in the document books.
I think distribution has been made of all of these to Defense Counsel, and I do have some extra copies for distribution to the Bench in the event that they are not readily available to you.
The first document which we would like to introduce is 2412-PS, which will become when formally offered Exhibit 415. This document was not included in any of the previous document books, but we suggest that it be place at the end of Document Book 1-A.
Document 2412-PS is an excerpt from a pamphlet, the author of which was Goebbels. The pamphlet was entitled "Nature and Form of National Socialism", and it was published in Berlin in 1935. I would like to read a paragraph from the document, and that paragraph is the third one in the English translation as distributed:
"National Socialism is now in the process of slowly stabilizing the new legality in Germany which was created by revolution. This is basically different from the former legality and is also beyond the possibilities of criticism, which National Socialism could itself apply in the old system. When democracy granted democratic methods for us in the times of opposition, this was bound to happen in a democratic system. However, we National Socialists never asserted that we represented a democratic point of view, but we have declared openly that we used democratic methods only in order to gain the power and that, after assuming the power, we would deny to our adversaries without any consideration the means which were granted to us in the times of opposition. In spite of this, we can assert that our government meets the rules of an ennobled democracy."
We offer the Document 2412-PS as Exhibit 415.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document which will be, when received in evidence, Exhibit 416, is the Document NG 737. This document is listed in the index of Document Book 6 and should be placed in that book according to the page designation in the index. I anticipate some argument-
THE PRESIDENT: Book 6?
MR. KING: Book 6, yes. I anticipate some argument from Defense Counsel as to the receipt of this document in evidence. This is a sworn affidavit of one Robert Hecker, who has appeared before this Court as a witness.
We are familiar with the ruling of the Court to the effect that once a witness has been dismissed, that an affidavit, according to the general rule, will not be received following his dismissal. However, it seems apparent that that ruling must also consider the subject matter. I take it that if the subject matter of this affidavit was referred to or commented upon by the witness Hecker while he was on the stand, we would have to abide, concerns the question of Nacht und Nebel, about which the witness Hecker did not testify while he was on the stand. We, therefore, think that the offering of this document at this time is not within the framework of the previous ruling of the Court.
Before reading several portions of this document, which I would like to do if the Court is favorable to receiving it in evidence, may I ask for a preliminary statement of the Court on this question?
THE PRESIDENT: Do Defense Counsel want to be heard on this question.
DR. SCHILF: (Attorney for Defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg) May it please the Tribunal, as regards the contents of this document, a quick glance through it shows that it deals not only with matters of the Nacht und Nebel decree, but also with matters of a more general nature, and matters concerning the Chief Reich Prosecutor at the People's Court.
If this document is admitted now, Defense Counsel would have to reserve the right for themselves to call the witness again, to have the witness brought back again for cross examination. Had this document been submitted in time, it would have been possible that it would have become the subject for cross examination at that time. Since it is submitted now, later, the Defense should not be put in a position of disadvantage with regard to the cross examination; on that occasion I should like to put a technical question. The affidavit, according to the German text, on page had been signed, has been signed, has been sworn to on the 5th of January, 1945; according to this statement of the 5th of January, 1945 -- Excuse me, please. It is a typographical error, but I read it correctly; it should be 1947; it is apparently a mistake in the text; the German text actually says 1945. I repeat the date therefore, 5th of January, 1947. After that there is a further statement by the witness of the 10th of March, 1947, which contains two corrections. These corrections on the 10th of March, 1947 apparently were not included in the oath, covered by the oath, as much as can be seen from the German wording of the last statement by the witness, because he only refers to the statement made on the 5th of January 1946. Here again I have to say according to the German text it says there "1946". I doubt whether my correction from 1945 to 1947 was correct; may be it was 1946 after all. A number of points are not clear, so that I believe that also formal objections can be raised to this document; objections of a technical nature.
MR. KING: Dr. Schilf has raised two questions, one as to the reaction of Defense Counsel -- perhaps Dr. Schilf is speaking only for himself -- is not quite clear as to the admission of the document in evidence.
I thought I discerned from what he said that he would have no objection to the admission of the document -- at least speaking for himself -- if he could reserve the right to recall the witness Hecker. So far as we know, he has the right, without reserving it, and even if we wanted to, I don't think we could prevent him from calling Hecker as his own witness. In any event, we would not object.
THE PRESIDENT: He would have no right to recall the witness except with the reservation; he would have to call him as his own witness.
MR. KING: That, of course, was what I was referring to.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me inquire whether Mr. King has properly understood the statement of Dr. Schilf. Are you able to speak for all of Defense Counsel, and are you willing that this be a modified condition, that you may call Hecker not as your witness, but as the Prosecution's witness?
DR. SCHILF: The translation did not come through.
THE PRESIDENT: It is necessary to repeat. As we understand Dr. Schilf's statement, and assuming that he speaks for the entire Defense Counsel, we understand that he has no objection to the admission of this document in evidence at this time if the Defense have the right to call this witness for cross examination as the witness of the Prosecution, and not merely as their own witness. Am I stating it correctly?
DR. SCHILF: Yes, Mr. President, that is correct insofar as this witness is concerned, if he can be called again for cross examination. We don't want him here as our witness, but as a witness for the Prosecution. I regret, however, that I have to say that I am not speaking in the name of all Defense Counsel, because my statement could only be for the two defendants who are my clients. I don't know what the interests are of the other Defense Counsel.
DR. HAENSEL: (Attorney for Defendant Joel) May it please the Tribunal, I have not spoken to my colleagues, but I believe that we do agree with the statement made by Dr. Schilf.
I only want to say one more thing in regard to this affidavit. There must be an error on page 4 -
MR. KING: May the Court please, that involves the second question which was raised by Dr. Schilf, and I thought it pertinent to discuss the first one, since if we decided the first question in the negative, there would be no point in discussing the second. I think, however, I can clear that question up to Dr. Schilf's and Dr. Haensel's satisfaction.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed with the other point. We assume there is now no objection to the document being received upon the conditions stated. It seems now that there is no objection on the part of any of the Defense Counsel to the document being received in evidence, subject to the right of any Defense Counsel to call him for further cross examination as the witness of the Prosecution. You may now, therefore, proceed to the next point that you had in mind, Mr. King.
MR. KING: Concerning the second point Dr. Schilf raised, and in which he was later joined by Dr. Haensel, I am quite frank to admit that on the basis of what one sees on the fact of this document, that the dates are a little confusing. I believe the history and a background perhaps is necessary. This affidavit, the main portion of it, was first -- let me say the statement, the main portion of the statement, was first made by Hacker on the 5th of January, 1946. At that time Hecker did not swear to the statement which he made. We discovered that omission in due course, and when Hecker became available we attempted to cure that defect by having him swear to the statement. At that time he actually did swear to the statement on the 10th of March, 1947. However, in the meantime, more than a year having elapsed, Mr. Hacker had an opportunity to think over the statement which he had made earlier, and for purposes of clarification he wished to add before he swore to it certain clarifying sentences, which he did; and they appear in the English copy on page 3, the second full paragraph.
Having added those explanatory sentences, he then proceeded to take the oath as administered by Mr. Schafer. Therefore, we think as the document now stands that it is a qualified affidavit, since he has sworn to the statement even though more than a year elapsed between the time the original statement was made and the time he actually was given the oath.
I said the oath was given by Mr. Schafer, the oath was given by Mr, Beauvais.
JUDGE BRAND: Is 5 January 1946 correct in the original?
MR. KING: 5 January 1946. 10 March 1947 as to the oath.
Is the Court still discussing this question?
THE PRESIDENT: No.
MR. KING: I assume, therefore, that the defense counsel have no objections to either the admission of the document in evidence or to the form of the oath? Admittedly it is a little confusing.
THE PRESIDENT: Was there not a. further objection by Dr. Schilf, which I do not know, in addition to the matter of admissibility?
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, there are no more objections since we have had an opportunity to see the original and the original makes it possible to disentangle the matter, which was not possible on the basis of the German document book.
MR. KING: I do not wish to read extensively or, in fact, at all from this document. I suggest, however, that we have introduced here a fact concerning Nacht und Nebel which is not elsewhere spelled out as it is in this document, and that is the final status of the Nacht und Nebel program.
I call to the attention of the Court the statement of Hecker which begins under point 3 and continues on from there. It concerns the disposition of the program in the Fall of 1944 when Nacht und Nebel prisoners were afforded a different treatment than they had prior to that time.
We offer the document NG-373 as Exhibit 416.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, I am interrupting at this moment to inquire if the defense counsel would consent to waiving the normal written notice in advance of the appearance of a witness. If they will do this, we will introduce this afternoon before the conclusion of the session a witness to testify to the geographical location of the concentration camps.
Otherwise we will have to call him sometime in the future after we file the normal notice.
DR. HAENSEL: We have no objection. We agree.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: After the recess we will introduce such a witness.
MR. KING: The document 1676-PS has been distributed to the Bench and the translators.
THE PRESIDENT: Does this belong to any particular document book?
MR. KING: I suggest that it also be placed at the end of Document Book 1-A. It was not included in the index in Document Book 1 or any of the document books, or any of the sections of Document Book 1, but I believe 1-A would be as logical as any other place.
This will be, when formally received in evidence, Exhibit 417.
This document is the transcript of an article or speech made by Dr. Goebbels. The transcript originally appeared in the Voelkischer Beobachter by Dr. Goebbels, for the 28th of May 1944. That is clear from the original which is being submitted.
The speech concerns the question of lynching and other treatment of downed allied flyers. I do not wish to read from this document but I point out to the Court that the portion of the speech or article which begins on - in the upper part of page 2 and continuing on throughout the balance of the transcript, as the part in which we are particularly interested.
The prosecution will maintain that following the delivery of this speech, and in collaboration with the Reich Ministry of Justice, the murder of allied flyers, of which Goebbels speaks here, was actually carried out or were actually carried out.
I show the photostatic copy of the Voelkischer Beobachter for 28 May to the defense counsel, if they care to look at it before we hand it up to the Secretary General.
(The document was then delivered to the defense counsel.)
We offer Document 1676-PS as Prosecution's Exhibit 417.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: May I ask if the representative of the Secretary General has copies of Document EG-491 on hand for distribution to the Court?
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: Yes, I have quite a few here; let me look. Yes.
MR. KING: Do you, by chance, have any German versions of that document?
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: I have only five copies in English.
MR. KING: I do nothave a copy of the German version of that document here. I do not wish to read very much. Perhaps the translators can follow me if I read slowly.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to identify this with any particular document book?
MR. KING: The Document NG-491, which will be Exhibit 418 when received in evidence, should be placed in Document Book 3-K and should be substituted for the document presently appearing in 3-K at page 45.
This document is a sworn statement by Dr. Arnulf Klett. Klett at the present time is the Lord Mayor of Stuttgart. Klett was formerly, perhaps still is, a practicing lawyer in Germany and frequently appeared as defense counsel before the defendant Cuhorst.
I would like to call attention to two paragraphs, particularly in this document; the first of which begins on the bottom of Page 1. Reading from the document, the paragraph mentioned:
"In the course of his activity with the Special Court Cuhorst passed many death sentences, according to my memory especially against foreigners; also, whereby one had to have the impression that, out of his outspoken national socialistic attitude, he felt great satisfaction in sentencing especially foreigners severely. When, in many cases, death sentences were not passed, it was not the merit of Cuhorst but that of the Associate Judges (i.e. Dinkelacker and the District Court Judge Frey) who as I know for certain - have gone through a lot of trouble to dissuade Cuhorst from his intended death sentences."
I would also like to read the following paragraph:
"Moreover Cuhorst took delight in working on executions of death sentences 'stop watch in h*** as he put it himself in order to ascertain afterwards in how short a time a number of death sentences had been carried out. He was also sometimes anxious that the case leading to a death sentence was conducted in a surprisingly short time, where he could then boast afterwards to third persons that one could pass already a legal death sentence in a hearing in so and so many minutes."
We offer the Document NG-491 as Exhibit 418.
DR. DOETZER: May it please the Tribunal. Dr. Doetzer for the defendant Cuhorst. I believe I remember that a few weeks ago, upon objection made by my colleague Dr. Brieger, the statement by this Lord Mayor was rejected; the acceptance of this document was rejected because it had not been submitted in the form of an affidavit. In the meantime, the statement of that time, on the 7th of April 1947, was sworn to by Mr. Klett. Apparently, however, in the old statement of the 3rd November 1946, there were handwritten corrections made. At any rate, a comparison between the copy previously submitted and the one submitted now shows that certain words had boon put in, and one can not see for sure when this occurred.
Not disregarding the probative value of this document, because it has been sworn to on the 7th of April 1947, it still seems necessary to me to point to these facts; that is to say, I do not really raise a definite objection against the document.
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem that if this is the document he swore to, it wouldn't matter if these was same other document some other time that had not been sworn to. Tho question is, did he swear to this document.
MR. KING: The principle which defense counsel seeks to invoke apparently is that every correction must be dated. I submit that that is not relevant since the affiant here, on the 7th or April, has sworn that the document which is being submitted as the original, together with changes, is the one that he was swearing to. As to when the particular changes were made, it doesn't seem to mo that it makes a bit of difference.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: The document NO-2253, copies of which have been circulated to tho bench and to the translators, will be, when formally offered in evidence, Exhibit 419.
THE PRESIDENT: With what document book do you identify this document?
MR. KING: I suggest that this document be placed at the end of Document Book 8-A. I think it does not appear in the index there, but that is where it quite logically should fill.
This is an affidavit of Dr. Hugo Suchomel. His present position can be seen by referring to the first page, the middle of the first paragraph. I wish to read from tho English, beginning on Page 3, opposite Point 4.
"In the second half cf 1932, I remember the date because I know that Thierack was already Minister of Justice at that time, he was appointed in August 1942, and because at that time Prof, Karl Brandt was already General Commissioner for the Medical and Health Service (He was appointed in July 1942), I received orders to take part in a meeting at the Reich Ministry of Justice in Berlin.