AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1400 hours, 9 April 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal No. 2 is again in session.
DR. VON STAKELBERG (For the defendant Fanslau): May it please the Court, during the recess I was given the document NO-2672, which was offered by the prosecution as Exhibit 36 this morning.
Without wishing to define my attitude on the contents of this document, I have to raise a formal objection. That document contains under the heading "Office A-5" a correction in handwriting and the initials of the defendant Fanslau. That correction is wrong in its content and as a matter of form it has been incorrectly put down. While I was absent, the prosecution examined the defendant Fanslau, and as early as 28 March. I protested against this in writing and asked the authorities not to make use of the results of the examination. I must therefore formally object to these remarks being made part of the evidence.
MR. MC HANEY: Does the Tribunal have the exhibit before it? It is the chart of the WVHA, which has been sworn to by the defendant Pohl. It is really contained in the Volk information brief.
Firstly, I must apologize to the attorney for the defendant Fanslau because it is quite true that his client was interrogated without the attorney having been notified beforehand. Those things will happen in spite of the closest control being maintained by the prosecution. It happened in this instance because we had considerable difficulty getting this chart drawn and sworn to by the defendant Pohl and only after having drawn it and re-draw it about five times did we finally get it in a form which was considered satisfactory, and even then he asked that the prosecution have a member of each one of the Amtsgruppe of the WVHA initial that line of offices before he signed it. For that reason the defendant Fanslau was called up on very short notice to initial t** line of offices for Amtsgruppe A and his attorney was not notified, for which we are quite sorry, but we think no material damage has resul The objection to the form of the chart concerns itself with Office A-5-4, which originally on the German copy contained "concentration camps" and then some further German words underneath which I cannot read.
The defendant Fanslau struck out the words "concentration camp", or at least he appears to have struck out the word "concentration", leaving in the word "camp" and then inserted in handwriting, "Verwaltungs", and then some words I cannot read, meaning administrative officers. He apparently concedes that Office A-5 did make available administrative officers for the concentration camps.
However, all of that is a matter of interpretation. You cannot in a chart of this sort put in such detail as to explain precisely what each office was doing, and as a matter of fact, in the translation before the Court the expression "concentration camp" does not even appear. Does the Tribunal find Amt A-5?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but I don't find any of the notations that you are concerned with.
MR. MC HANEY: Do you find the Office A-5-4? That is the last one listed.
THE PRESIDENT: Administrative officers.
MR. MC HANEY: That is correct. So actually, as a matter of fact, on the translation there is nothing to which the attorney for the defendant Fanslau can find objection. On the original it is a little bit confused. The words "concentration camp" originally appeared opposite the Office A-5-4 and even --
THE PRESIDENT: As it comes to the Tribunal, those objectionable words do not appear.
MR. MC HANEY: That is correct. Of course, if they are contained in the original, it might be open to question as to precisely what this **fice had to do with concentration camps, if anything. That is, there ***still open a question of interpreting the charts.
THE PRESIDENT: If nothing had been said about it, the Tribunal would ** had the words "Administrative Officers" and nothing else before it.
MR. MC HANEY: Very true, and probably even the prosecution would not have noticed it.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: I believe that the words "Administrative Officers" belong to A-5-2. It says below, even if it only says "Administrative Officers" in the wrong place. But I have no objection to that.
THE PRESIDENT: The matters that you object to do not appear on the exhibit before the Court.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: As far as Exhibit 36 is concerned, I have to make formal objection also, that neither I myself nor my associate were called in when the defendant August Frank put his initials to the Office A. The formal objection, as far as I am concerned, is very important, substantially, and which I can only explain later on when I shall examine my client. But I should like to point out now that the main content of this objection is that by this chart the impression might be gained that all orders and directives which came from the top to the Office Groups D and W all went through Office Group A, and that is incorrect. I therefore object formally.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be overruled but the chart can be explained or objected to at the time your testimony is offered.
MR. MC HANEY: With the permission of the Tribunal, I would like to say a few words about certain motion pictures which the prosecution hopes to exhibit to the Tribunal. We have three such pictures. The first one is a picture made by the American authorities and shows conditions in German concentration camps which were overrun by the Allied armies. It has been exhibited to the International Military Tribunal and we shall ask that this Tribunal take judicial notice of its contents. The other two pictures were made by Russian authorities and show the conditions in the camps of Auschwitz and Maidanec, which were in Poland.
I would ask that the Tribunal hold a session for the purpose of exhibiting these movies on Saturday of this week for the reason that the only facilities available for the proper showing of the pictures are in Courtroom No. 1 where the medical case is now being tried. The American picture has an English sound track with a German translation which is transmitted through the earphones on the German channel.
The Russian films have a German sound track which will require translation and transmission through the English channel.
Consequently, we will need translation facilities in a place where the picture can be exhibited and that is only, as far as I know, in Courtroom No. 1. That courtroom will be available this Saturday; it will not be available the following Saturday for the reason that the Flick case will open that day with the opening statement by the prosecution.
So I ask that the Tribunal consider holding a session Saturday morning. I think the pictures will take two or three hours.
THE PRESIDENT: This Tribunal will be in session on Saturday morning in Courtroom No. 1 for the purpose of exhibiting the motion picture film that you mention.
MR. MC HANEY: Thank you.
One other point is that I would like to ask the Tribunal to instruct defense counsel when they put in applications, either for witnesses who have submitted affidavits on behalf of the prosecution, such as in the instance this morning of Hoess, or even when defense counsel themselves put in a request to have a witness brought here for the defense, that the defense specify in as much detail as is possible the purpose for which the witness is being called. That is, to state as precisely as it can be done, what material facts the defense counsel expect to elicit from the witness. In that way the prosecution may very well be able to stipulate that certain conditions existed and make it unnecessary to bring the witness here. In other cases the Tribunal may very well be in a position to say that we do not think that this point is material. In still other cases it will be possible, I think, for the Tribunal to say that these facts have been investigated already before some other Tribunal, as in the case of Hoess, who testified at great length before the IMT and very clearly stated that he was in Auschwitz during a period when 3,000,000 people were exterminated.
So, in so far as the prosecution can see, it would be a little bit unnecessary to bring a man here and have him testify to the same thing that is in issue with respect to the defendants. Of course, they may wish to investigate facts other than that but I think it is only fair that they state those things so that we all have a clear picture of what facts are attempted to be elicited from the witness so that we can know, we can stipulate, we can urge immateriality, and the Court will also be advised of those facts.
THE PRESIDENT: These requirements are all covered by the rules of this Court and if the application as it comes to the Chief of Counsel is not sufficiently informative you can raise the point before the witness is approved.
MR. MC HANEY: Very well, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is understood that the rule requires that the application state in some detail what it is proposed to have the witness testify to. That should be sufficiently detailed so that both the Court and the Chief of Counsel can determine whether it will be otherwise covered or whether it is material.
DR. GAWLIK: I would ask the Court to make a similar ruling for the witnesses for the prosecution. In my opinion it is not sufficient, as has happened before, that witnesses are merely told they should make statements oh the Auschwitz concentration camp. Such statements are on the blackboard of the defense counsel. It is, in our opinion, important for the prosecution to say who of the various defendants will be incriminated by the witnesses and in particular which of the alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, with which the various defendants are charged, are to be affirmed by these witnesses.
And the same applied for the affidavits and other means of evidence in regard to the fact that the Prosecution has in no way made clear what variations are to be made; that the Prosecution should, in the case of every single evidence, say in how far it wishes to use against the various defendants. This is the only way the Defense can produce the necessary rebuttal evidence. Otherwise, we are faced with a mystery and have to guess who is to be incriminated by the document, and what conclusions the Prosecution wishes to draw from that piece of evidence -- to the disadvantage of the various defendants.
THE PRESIDENT: We will conclude this discussion by saying that the rules of procedure of the Court apply to everyone--either for the Defense or for the Prosecution.
MR. ROBBINS: I next offer Document NO-1036, as Prosecution Exhibit 66. This is a memorandum dated 13 January 1944, initialed by the defendant Baier, and addressed to the Chief of Office W-4. The subject is a conversion into concentration camps of forced labor camps at Cracow, Lvov, Lublin and Radom-Blizyn. And the letter, I believe, is important enough to read in full.
"The Obergruppenfuehrer has approved the changes in organization of the German Equipment Works (that is the D.A.W.) resulting from the conversion of the above mentioned forced labor camps into Concentration Camps. Thus the Central Administration for the Government General of the German Equipment Works (the D.A.W.) can establish itself at Cracow and SS-Obersturmfuehrer Morwinkel be appointed head of the Central Administration. Will you please keep me informed of the start and working progress of the new Central Administration."
Initialled: Baier. The remainder of that some document is a report by the Chief of Office W-4 Hauptamtchef, apparently -
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Initialled by whom ?
MR. ROBBINS: By Baier; the first letter on page eighty --
JUDGE PHILLIPS: The document in my transcript is so I dim I can't read any of it.
MR. ROBBINS: Is that on page eighty, sir ? It is very dim. I think that the transcript will have the complete reproduction.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you read that letter, Mr.Robbins ?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes. "The Obergruppenfuehrer has approved the changes in organization of the German Equipment Works (D.A.W.) resulting from the conversion of the above-mentioned forced labor camps into Concentration Camps. Thus the Central Administration for the Government General of the German Equipment Works (D.E.W.) can be establish itself at Cracow and SS-Obersturmfuehrer Morwinkel be appointed head of the Central Administration. Will you please keep me informed of the start and working progress of the new Central Administration ?"
"Chief W"..... initialled "B" for Baier ...."SS-Oberfuehrer."
This illustrates the supervision which Staff W exercised over individual Aemter in Amtsgruppe W.
The balance of document 1036 is a memorandum by the Chief of W-4, Opperbeck, and contains the changes in organization of the DAW referred to in Baier's letter, which letter says that the changes have been approved by Pohl. Opperbeck's memorandum states: "By agreement between the Hauptamtchef, SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, and SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Koppe, Senior SS- and Police Officer at Cracow, all Forced Labor Camps at Cracow-Plaszow, all forced labor camps at Cracow-Plaszow, Lvov, Lublin, and Radom-Blizyn, established by the local SS- and Police Officers, are to be converted into Concentration Camps."
And dropping down to the paragraph number one: "The Cracow-Plaszow Works", the memorandum states "The shops in this camp, hitherto operated by the Senior SS-- and Police Officer Cracow will be taken over, effective from the same date, by Office W-4, German Equipment Works (DAW). The shops will be named DAW-German Equipment Works."
Turning over to the paragraph number two, "The Lwow Works", the memorandum states that "By agreement with Department D, prisoners held in Germany will be transferred to Lwow. The necessary cadre numbering some 250 men will forthwith be detailed for the German Equipment Works (DAW) from the plants at Sachsenhausen, Buchenwald and Dachau."
Turning to paragraph number three: "The Lublin Works", the memorandum states. "For this purpose 250 skilled men from the German Equipment Works plants at Dachau, Sachsenhausen, and Buchenwald will be transferred to form the cadre."
Similar statements are made with regard to the Radom works and the Blizyn works on the following pages.
I offer document NO 576 as Prosecution Exhibit 67, on page 86, which is a memorandum by Maurer of Amtsgruppe D, which shows the wage scales of prisoners working with industries, and for Amtsgruppe C. The memorandum is dated 24 February 1944, and shows the wages scales for prisoners in Office W-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8; and for Office Group C. I offer document 1584-PS, as Prosecution Exhibit 68, found on page 89, which is a letter from Himmler to Goering regarding the use of prisoners in the aviation industry, dated 9 March 1944, which was read in full by me in the opening statement. I offer Document NO - 1553on page 91, as Prosecution Exhibit 69, which is a directive by Rudolph Hoess to the heads of political departments of all concentration camps concerning reports on executions, deaths, and so forth. The second paragraph of the memorandum states in regard to general correspondence: "It is expressly forbidden to make requests to the RSHA or RKPA for camp releases. All such requests, whether they are made by the W-bureaux or other offices, are always to be sent to this office along with the personnel record and deportment report."
Paragraph 2 directs that, "It is also forbidden to make requests directly to the RSHA or the Reichsfuehrer-SS for executions."
The following paragraph says, "Requests for executions are at times signed by the Chief of the Political Departments. That won't do; they must either be signed by the commandant or his deputy."
Similarly, transfer of prisoners. The memorandum directs "orders for transfers are, on principle, only issued from here" -- referring to Amtsgruppe D.
Similarly, "Escape of Prisoners", "cases of death", "Applications for P.-Punishments", "Applications are to go through Amtsgruppe D". Similarly, for "Fog and Night (NN) Prisoners; "all correspondence of NN prisoners has to be submitted through our office."
I offer Document NO-1025, as Prosecution Exhibit 70.
THE. PRESIDENT: Mr. Robbins, can you identify the person who made this directive?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes; that is Liebehenschel, who is the Chief of Office D, one who was later succeeded by Rudolph Hoess.
THE PRESIDENT: Not a defendant--?
MR. ROBBINS: No, Your Honor, not a defendant.
Document NO-1025, Prosecution Exhibit 70, on page 96, is a letter from Mummenthey to Baier--both defendants--complaining that the commander of Mauthausen did not give sufficient rank to a works manager, and asking for an interview concerning the service grade, indicating Memmenthey's interests and the plant managers of amtsgruppe W. I offer Document NO-1984 as Prosecution Exhibit 71. This, according to the document, is a corrected statement of monetary requirements for the SS Main Economic and Administrative Office, Amt W-1, Commando DEST Rubble Utilization Duesseldorf for the period of December 1943 *t April 1944, and less the number of handymen basic wage rates amounts asked for, the fixed wages and the amounts to be refunded for the month listed on the document.
I next offer Document NO-076 as Prosecution Exhibit 72. This is a letter from Himmler to Pohl and others, a circular letter in fact, addressed to Pohl and to the WVHA, and others, stating that Himmler has control of the PW camps, and that Pohl is to be consulted in transferring PW's to labor camps, the latter reference appears at paragraph number four. The question of the labor allocation of the prisoners of war-- Well, excuse me. Start at the first of the sentence. The question, subject three, will be discussed by SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Berger with the Deputy Commander of the Reserve Army, SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Juettner, the question of the labor allocation of the prisoners of war with the SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl...."
MR. HART: Next I offer Document NO-1990 as Exhibit 73. This is a letter from Burger of Amt. D-4 to the Chief of Amt. B reporting on the amount of clothing held and used at concentration camps and the prisoner strength of various camps. Again it illustrates the collaboration between the various Ampts. I next offer Document NO-2149 on Page 106 as Prosecution's Exhibit 74. This is an affidavit of Otto Barnewald. He states that from July 1938 to May 1940 he was administration chief at the concentration camp, Mauthausen. From May 1940 to January 1942, administration chief at Neuengamme and from January 1942 to April 1945 administration chief at Buchenwald. He received his training as administration chief at Dachau and states: "My tasks as administration chief of a concentration camp were as follows: a) For the troops clothing, food, billeting, providing of billeting facilities and monetary matters (payroll). b) For the detainees: I had to take care of clothing, food, administration of the property of the detainees and proration of billeting facilities. I received the clothing for detainees from Office B II through Office D LV. I made out the request for Office D IV. Burger (D IV) then contacted B 11 (Lechler) and the clothing was sent directly from B II to the concentration camp. If the clothing was not sufficient, which happened in hundreds of cases, I had to apply to D IV. My attempts to acquire additional clothing were in vain most of the time and lately even hopeless."
He also states that Kar, the physician in charge at that time, complained through official channels of the insufficient clothing with the result that Standartenfuehrer Tschentschner, defendant, received an order from Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl to investigate the conditions at Nordhausen and the affidavit goes ahead to describe Tschentscher's report on those conditions. The affidavit also refers to the rations for detainees from the food office and on the last page refers to the crematory at Mauthausen and its construction, also to the gold which was removed from the teeth of the deceased inmates. He states that "the gold was delivered to me monthly by the dentist together with a receipt, and I sent it over to Burger in D IV every six months."
I next offer Document NO-2327 as Exhibit 75, which is an affidavit of Hermann Pister. He states that from the end of January 1942 to the end of the war that he was commander of Buchenwald concentration camp and the balance of the affidavit refers to his knowledge of various individuals, including Vogt, Sommer, Mummenthey, Tschentscher, Pook, Volk, and Fanslau.
I now offer Document NO-2160 as Prosecution's Exhibit 76, which is a letter from Gluecks to Maurer, rather from Gluecks and Maurer to Hohberg to obtain reimbursement for expenses accrued in transferring concentration camp commanders. This completes Document Book No. 3.
MR. HART: May it please the Tribunal, I offer a series of documents contained in Document Book No. 4 of the Prosecution, entitled "Concentration Camps." I offer Document NO-2432 as Exhibit No. 77. This is a letter from Hildebrand concerning the establishment of the concentration camp at Stutthof. I offer Document NO-2117 as Exhibit No. 78. This is a letter of the Defendant Hans Loerner concerning the Stutthof concentration camp and the auditing of its accounts. I offer Document NO-482 as Exhibit No. 79. This document constitutes correspondence between Himmler and Pohl showing the influence of Pohl upon Himmler in the decision of what should be and what should not be a concentration camp.
DR. GAWLIK (attorney for Defendant Volk): May it please the court, as to Document NO-2117, I ask the prosecution what is meant by that document. What is to be proved by this document. This document shows that the Stutthof Camp was under the SS and Vistula under Obergruppenfuehrer Hildebrand. Hildebrand is not one of the defendants nor is the SS Vistula in connection with the WVHA. I therefore cannot see that this Stutthof document is to prove against the defendants, especially those represented by me. I would ask you therefore to dismiss these documents as irrelevant.
MR. HART: If the court please, none of the defendants are directly implicated by this document, but I submit the document should be accepted subject to subsequent connection.
It deals with the Camp Stutthof. The following document, Prosecution's Exhibit No. 78 shows a very detailed information on the part of the defendant Hans Loerner of the same concentration camp Stutthof during the period concerned in the Hildebrand letter.
DR. GAWLIK (Attorney for Defendant Volk): May it please the court, it does not matter who wrote the letter, but the contents of the letter is important and that shows on the Document 2117. I quote literally: "The suggestion to take over the concentration camp has been turned down, and also the Secret Police cannot do without the Camp. SS-Obergruppenfuehrer put the Stutthof Camp from 1 April 1940 with the assistance of SS-Oberabschnitt Weischel under his own command." The document would be proved against Obergruppenfuehrer Hildebrandt, but I cannot see that it has to do with the defendants here, in the dock here, and how this document has any probative value at all.
THE PRESIDENT: This document is signed by one of the defendants, is it not?
DR. GAWLIK (Attorney for Defendant Volk): Yes, it is.
THE PRESIDENT: The prosecution states that it hopes to connect this document with others. If they fail to do that, no harm is done, but the document is admissible as having been signed by one of the defendants. If it doesn't implicate him, you haven't been hurt, but on the prosecution's statement that it will connect this document with others, it will be admitted.
MR. HART: I next offer Document No. 1475 as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 80. This is a letter from a private concern with reference to the proposed establishment of a concentration camp in Neudorf.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: I ask that you read the bottom paragraph of that exhibit so we can make out what it says.
MR. HART: The last of the letter states, "I ask you, Reichfuehrer, to inform the SS-Obergruppenfuehrers Juettner and Pohl that you are willing to comply with my request; then I shall contact both these SS comrades directly concerning how to carry it out in detail."
Is that the paragraph your Honor had reference to?
JUDGE PHILLIPS: No, the second paragraph on page 10, third paragraph.
"A few weeks ago, Fieldmarshall Milch appointed me Provisional Manager of the Airplane Motor Works at Ostmark. I see that we can succeed in starting the works only with extraordinary means. The worse difficulties are those concerning the mobilization of labor.
"I therefore ask you, Reichsfuehrer, to approve the immediate establishment of a branch camp of the concentration camp Mauthausen in Viennese Neudorf with a total complement of approximately 2,000 inmates and a transfer to this camp of 1,000 detainees who anyhow have been working in the iron processing industry until now, and 1,000 detainees who will first be used --"
JUDGE MUSSMANO: - - preponderantly -
MR HART: -- preponderantly for construction work and for whom it is sufficient if they do auxiliary work."
The next document R-129 has been submitted in evidence. I offer Document NO-020.
THE PRESIDENT: This is another copy. It is already in as a previous exhibit.
MR. HART: I offer Document NO-020 as Exhibit No. 81. This is a letter from Pohl to Himmler submitting a map marking all concentration camps and work camps. There is a significant remark by the Defendant Pohl: "During Eicher's time there were altogether six camps.
"Now: 185!"
I offer next Document No. NO-020-B as Exhibit No. 81. This is Pohl's acknowledgment to the letter last mentioned.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it not 82?
MR. HART: I think not, sir. I have not offered R129 which has been previously offered -- excuse me -- it is. It is 82, yes, sir.
I next offer Document NO-743 as Exhibit 83. This is a Heydrich circular letter regarding the grading of concentration camps.
I next offer Document NO-2110 as Exhibit No. 84. This is a Liebehenschel letter regarding the grades and classifications. I should say it is introduced to show the grading and classification of prisoners and camps.
I next offer Document Number 1216-PS as Exhibit No. 85. This is a set of regulations for the concentration camp Dachau in 1933.
I next offer Document Number NO-517 as Exhibit No. 86. This is a memorandum by the Defendant Baier concerning a request by Pohl to the effect that he and Mauer, who was the Chief of Amtsgruppe D-II collaborate in drawing up camp regulations.
DR. FRITSCH: (For the defendant Hans Baier.)
As far as the last document is concerned, Exhibit No. 86, I would ask the Court to find the date of that document. My copy shows 23 March 1946.
THE PRESIDENT: It should be 1944.
DR. FRITSCH: Thank you very much.
MR. HART: I next offer Document NO-2167 as Exhibit No. 87. This appears on Page 36 of the Document Book. This is a Gluecks' letter to concentration camp commanders regarding the allocation of prison labor. I should like to read the second last paragraph. It is number 7.
"7) The camp Commander "*E" will turn over the entire inventory, including typewriters, etc. as far as they were supplied by the former Main Department 1/5 and paid for by the Main Office Budget and Buildings, to the camp commanders preparing lists thereof. A copy of the list is to be submitted to the Commissioner for Labor Allocation."
I next offer Document Number NO-1994 as Exhibit No. 88.
This document consists of Pohl-Himmler correspondence concerning new assignments of concentration camp commanders proposed by the Defendant Pohl.
I next offer Document Number NO-1245 as Exhibit No. 89. This is a Pohl Order directing concentration camp commanders to instruct -
THE PRESIDENT: 44.
MR. HART: -- the concentration camps guards weekly. I next offer the document appearing at Page 46 of the Document Book, being Document Number NO-1545 as Exhibit No. 90. This is a letter from Gluecks concerning regulations for houses of prostitution for Ukrainian guards.
I next offer Document Number NO-1554 as Exhibit No. 91 appearing at Page 47. This is the Gluecks' letter to camp commanders regarding the guarding of prisoners by fellow prisoners.
I next offer Document NO-1946 as Exhibit No. 92 at Page 48. This document consists of a sample of instructions issued to the SS guards, particularly those who guarded the workers in the quarries.
I next offer Document Number No-1506 as Exhibit No. 93.
JUDGE MUSSMANO: Would you mind giving the page?
MR. HART: Page 50. Yes, sir. Exhibit 93 is at Page 50 of the Document Book. This is Gluecks' letter stating that inspections of concentration camps can only take place with his authorization.
THE PRESIDENT: This letter appears -
MR. HART: If the Court please, there is a signature which appears on my copy as "Schuerz." I have examined the photostat of the original, and I feel quite sure that the signature is that of "Gluecks;" that the word "Scheurz" on Exhibit Number 93 is erroneous.
I next offer Document Number NO-1242 as Exhibit No. 94, appearing at Page 51. This is Liebenhentschel Orders to the effect that all sorts of persons should not be permitted to gaze at special construction projects.
I offer document Number NO-1291 as Exhibit No. 95. This is at Page 52. This is the Liebenhentschel Memorandum to the camp commanders regarding the change of the name of the Civilian Internment Camp Bergen-Belsen to that of "Staging Camp, Bergen-Belsen."
The letter states, "This change is necessary because, according to the Geneva Convention, Civil Internment Camps must be open to inspection by International Commissions."
I omit the next document Number 1244.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: You mean for the present or do you intend to come back?
MR. HART: I would like to leave that open if I may, Your Honor. It is at Page 54 of the Document Book. At the present moment, it is missing.
THE PRESIDENT: Shall we give it an exhibit number?
MR. HART: I omit the next Document No. NO 1244, at page -
JUDGE PHILLIPS: You mean at the present, or do you intend to come back to it?
MR. HART: I would like to leave that open, if I may, Your Honor. It is at page 54 of the Document Book, which at the present time is missing.
THE PRESIDENT: Shall we give it an exhibit number?
MR. HART: I am not able to say at the moment. Let's just skip it.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's number it Exhibit 96, so they may be numbered consecutively. When it is obtained it will bear that number.
MR. HART: I am not offering it at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand.
MR. HART: I offer Document No. 2180 as Exhibit 97. This is Maurer's letter to Camp Commanders concerning the vocational training of concentration camp prisoners. This is Page 55 of the book.
I offer Document No. 2148 as Exhibit 98 at page 56.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will take its customary recess.
THE MARSHALL: This Tribunal is in recess 15 minutes.
(Thereupon a recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: All persons in Court please take your seats.
Tribunal No. 2 is again in session.
MR. HART: I next offer at Page 68 of the document book, Document NO-1293 as Exhibit 99. This is Gluecks' order to camp commanders concerning the screening of concentration camp prisoners by the RSHA prior to their transfer from one camp to another.
Next at Page 69 of the document book I offer Document No. NO-1551 as Exhibit No. 100. This is a Gluecks' directive to concentration camp commanders concerning monthly reports to Amtgruppe D, its arrivals and departures and transfers of prisoners.
At Page 71 of the document book I offer Document No. NO-592 as Exhibit No. 101. This is a Pohl teletype to Himmler concerning the first transportation of Jews from Hungrary. This teletype was referred to in the opening statement.
At Page 73 of the document book I offer Document NO-1967 as Exhibit No, 102. This is a Liebenhenschel communication to camp commanders enclosing a decree of the RSHA concerning the difficulty of reporting on concentration camp prisoners.