THE PRESIDENT:Gentlemen, it occurs to me that the objection to these documents as a whole cannot be considered by the Tribunal unless we should take time out to familiarize ourselves with the contents of all, or unless, which is not probavle, that they are all comparable so that the same ruling would apply to all of them regardless of their contents. I think before the Tribunal can pass on such a general objection that perhaps we had better have the objection directed toward the individual documents. Now we do not hold to the type rule that prevails in some courts here that the objection must be made at the time. We permitted objections to be made after the documents have really been passed and received into evidence. We don't want to carry that rule too far here and get ourselves into trouble, so perhaps we had better back up and start again on this book No. 18. The prosecution has a general objection here and perhaps Mr. Sprecher if you care to you had better make your objection to individual documents until we develop this thing to the point where we know where we are going. We can't consider an objection here to a whole group of affidavits or exhibits unless we have an opportunity to know exactly what is in them. Now the defense counsel has offered documents 504 as his Exhibit 425. Are you objecting to that?
MR. SPRECHER:Yes, Mr. President. May I interject a suggestion which might possibly be helpful, at least for your consideration?
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, certainly, this is the time to discuss it; let us have your views on it.
MR. SPRECHER:Mr. President, the nature of my objections would vary very little except that there is some slight difference perhaps between the documents under Part I of Dr. Seidl's book or Duerrfeld Book 18, and Part II. But outside of that, I don't think that the objections would greatly differ. The objections would run to private statements of opinion by numerous persons who are not in a position to commit anyone officially. In many cases and in other cases they are incompetent as to statements of opinion of the type which you have excluded many times before.
Dr. Seidl has admitted that part of them are being admitted or are being offered in an attempt to challenge Control Counsel Law 10, which we think is not permissible, and as we have argued in numerous motions, some of which Your Honor has sustained. I would like to suggest that they all be marked for identification until Your Honors can sufficiently familiarize yourselves with the individual documents so that you could either rule or else ask for some further argument on specific documents at that time. I think it would save a lot of time.
THE PRESIDENT:What I had in mind when I said that perhaps there were differences in the documents--just for illustration; some of the documents do come from periods of time that might be regarded as contemporaneous with the period with which you are here concerned; that is before World War III. Some apparently from the index come afterwards; some are from officials, ranging from Secretary of State Lansing down; some are newspaper publications and some are books. Now I don't know whether there is any basis of distinguishing them on that foundation or not. That was the reason I made that suggestion. Just a moment, let me talk to my associates.
Dr. Seidl, I think we might save our time as well as yours if you would see fit to adopt the suggestion of the prosecution to mark these documents in this book with exhibit numbers for purposes of identification only, and give us an opportunity to go through the book and somewhat familiarize ourselves with it. Maybe after doing that we can come to a conclusion as to part or all of them or it might possibly be that we may want to hear you further.
Have you any objection to that procedure to giving them identification numbers now and let us take these books and go over them and then take it up a little later and determine the admissibility of the exhibits.
DR. SEIDL:Yes, I am quite willing to give the documents identification numbers for the time being, and not give them to the Secretery General yet today.
I shall designate 504 as Exhibit 425 for identification. The next document 506 will be 426. 509 will be Exhibit 427. Document 511 will be 428. 514 will be 429. 517 will be 430. 519 will be Exhibit 431, for identification. The following document is 520 which will be Exhibit 432. Document 522 will be Exhibit 433. The next document is 523 which will be Exhibit 434 for identification. The next document is 525 and I assign to it Exhibit No. 435. There follows 527 which will be 436. The last document on this page of the index is 530 which will be Exhibit 437.
On Page 2 of the index, the first document is 532 which will be Exhibit 438. The next document is 533 which will be Exhibit 439. The next document is 534, Exhibit 440. There follows 537 to which I give the Exhibit No. 441. We now come to Document 540 which will be No. 442. There follow 541 to which I give the number 443. The next document is 543 which will be 554. There follows a document No. 544 which will be Exhibit No. 445. The next document is 546 which will be Exhibit No. 446. The next three documents are 549 (a), (b), and (c). All three together will be Exhibit No. 447. The last document is 448. These are the documents included in Part I.
I now go on to Part II. The first document is 553, which will be Exhibit 449. The next is 554 which will be 450. On Page 3 of the index, the first document is No. 555 which will be Exhibit 451 for identification. The next document is 556 which will be 452. There follows Document 557, Exhibit 453. Document 558, Exhibit 454. 559 will be 455. Document 560 will be 456, for identification. I now come to Document 561 which I will give the number 456. The next document is 562 and will become 458. We now come to a document which was out in evidence in the IMT trial: 1871-PS I shall give the Exhibit No. 459 for identification. The same is true of the next document 798-PS. It was also introduced in the IMT trial. However, the prosecution quoted only excerpts. It will be Exhibit 460. There follows another Duerrfeld Document No. 567 which will be Exhibit No. 461. The next is 568 and will be 462. The last document on Page 3 of the index is 560 which will be 463.
On Page 4 we have three documents. The first is No. 579 which I give the number 464. The next document is 572 which will be 465. The last document 573 will be for identification 466.
This concludes the documents in Book 18, and that concludes the presentation of documents for the present stage of the case for the defendant Dr. Duerrfeld. I should like to reserve the right to call one more witness within the period of time left to me if such a witness should arrive in time. This concludes the case for Dr. Duerrfeld, from the point of view of the defense for the time being.
THE PRESIDENT:Now, Counsel, so that we may have no misunderstanding I shall state for the record that Duerrfeld Exhibits from 425 to 466, both inclusive, have been marked for identification only and the question as to their admissibility is to be determined later.
Just one thing further. You stated a little while ago that if the exhibits were admitted you would in due time hand the originals to the Secretary General. I think our practice is that when a document is marked for identification it should be deposited with the Secretary General because by that act you make it available to the other side. So perhaps you had better see that the original of these documents 425 to 466 inclusive are deposited here with the Secretary General.
DR. SEIDL:Very well.
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Aschenauer, are you ready to proceed with the case for your client Gattineau?
Dr. Aschenauer, may I ask you.....
Pardon me, Dr. Seidl.
DR. SEIDL:Mr. President, I just wanted to make a brief remark. In Document Book XVIII there should be two attachments which are not in the book yet. These are charts. They belong to Documents 549A, B and C on page 45 to 54 of the book. I want to ask the Court to include these charts in the document book. They are English translations of two charts. I designated this for identification as #447. These charts belong on page 53 and 54 of the 3ook XVIII for Duerrfeld.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well, we'll see that the charts are placed in our book.
Just a moment, Dr. Aschenauer, until we get some records straightened out here. We'1 be ready to go in a moment.
You may proceed now.
DR.ASCHEWAUER (Defense Counsel for defendant Gattineau): May it please the Tribunal, for the sake of simplification I should like to mention before calling the defendant Gattineau into the witness stand to what Prosecution Document Books I shall refer.
I shall refer to Prosecution Document Books 3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,13,14,15,16,20,28,30,41,44,45,46,47,48,52 and 53. In addition, I shall refer to a document submitted during Ilgner's cross examination, NI 7982, Exhibit 2026. I shall repeat the one but last exhibit - Exhibit #1977. I shall basically reserve the right to call a witness and then I shall also refer to a motion which I shall make in the course of Gattineau's examination.
I shall now call the defendant Gattineau to the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT:The defendant Gattineau may take the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT:The defendant Gattineau may take the witness stand.
May I ask you, Dr. Aschenauer, will we necessarily need our books for the balance of the day here? They are in our office. We can send and get them, but there's only less than thirty minutes, twenty-five minutes now. Can we get along today without our document books?
DR. ASCHENAUER:Your Honor, you will need one document book today. That is Document Book #1, the first document book of Gattineau.
THE PRESIDENT:Will the messenger go to our offices and bring in our Gattineau Document Book #1 for each of us?
HEINRICHGATTINEAU, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Gattineau, will you raise your right hand, say "I" and state your name for the record.
THE WITNESS:I, Heinrich Gattineau......
THE PRESIDENT:Now, please repeat after me the oath of a witness:
I swear by God, the Almighty and the Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and that I will add and withhold nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath).
You may be seated.
Dr. Aschenauer, before you start, would you just give us a statement as to the number of document books that you will expect to present in the course of your presentation? How many document books have you?
DR. ASCHENAUER:During the first part, Your Honor, that is to say, in the course of the examination of the witness of Gattineau, I shall introduce five document books. In the latter and shorter part of my submission of evidence, I shall introduce Document Books 6A and 6B.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well. Now, may I ask you how many witnesses do you propose to use in addition to the defendant himself, if you are in a position to say to us. It just gives a little bit of idea on how to plan our time. That is all I am concerned about.
DR. ASCHENAUER:Your Honor, it is possible that I shall call one witness in addition to the defendant, but it is not probable.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well. You may proceed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. ASCHENAUER:
QWitness, would you please state your full name?
AHeinrich Julius Karl Gattineau.
QWould you briefly describe your career up to the time of your studies?
AI was born in 1905 in Bucharest where my father was living as a German dentist. I attended school in Switzerland, Wuerttemberg and Bavaria. In 1923 I went to the University of Munich.
QWhat is your present status?
AI am a German, forty-three years old, married and have four children.
QWhat did you study?
ALaw, national economy and business management.
QWhat examinations did you conclude?
ANational economics, referendar, and doctor of political science.
QThrough which professor did you graduate?
AGeheimrat Adolf Weber.
QWhat was the title of your doctor's thesis?
AThe "Urbanisierungs" (Urbanization) Process in Australia and its significance for the furture of the White Race. This was later published as a book.
QIn addition to your studies did you do practical work?
AYes. First of all, I went through a training period in business and later I worked part time while I was studying to earn my expenses since, during the inflation, my parents had lost their money.
QWhen did you conclude your studies?
AIn the fall of 1927.
QWhat was your first position?
AScientific assistant in the Secretariate of Geheimrat Dulsberg in Leverkusen.
QHow did you obtain that position?
AGeheimrat Dulsberg Inquired of Porfessor Adolf Weber since he needed an assistant. My teacher recommended me. After a personal interview in Leverkusen I obtained the position.
QIn that connection I should like to offer into evidence Gattineau Document #6 as Exhibit 1. Geheimrat Weber confirms in that document the fact just stated by the defendant Gattineau The witness says that Privy Counsel Duisberg asked him to suggest a secretary to him who had good economic training and who knew his job but who also had sympathy towards the workers and was completely impartial as far as Party politics were concerned.
Thereupon, the witness had suggested Gattineau who later received the job.
How did you get that position?
AI reported in Leverkusen to Geheimrat Duisberg. He involved me in a discussion about the problem of foreign loans. As a student of Weber I held a different position from Duisberg's. The discussion became so heated that I expected him to throw me out any minute. Suddenly, Duisberg said. "You're hired".
QHow did the position at Leverkusen then develop?
AThe former head of Secretariate II, Dr. Otto Messmann, to whom I was assigned, accepted another position and Geheimrat Dulsberg made me his successor. In addition to that, I was in charge of the Central Department for Economic Questions at the Leverkusen plant which had economic statistical problems of the Leverkusen plant to deal with.
QWhat were you tasks as the head of Secretariate II?
AGeheimrat Duisberg was at that time President of the Reich Association of German Industry, Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce at Solingen, and member of the Vorstand of various other economic organizations. He was also active in the field of care for students and was in many organization to promote science. All this involved a great deal of work, since Duisberg frequently had to make speeches and write articles on many scientific and cultural subjects. The work and the correspondence resulting from this activity formed my duties. I also kept contact with the organizations in which Duisberg was an officer and accompanied him on his trips connected with these tasks.
Q.Did you participate in these publications and speeches?
A.Yes.
Q.Did you also deal with Farben affairs which Duisberg handled in his capacity as a chairman of the Verwaltungs and Aufsichtsrat?
A.No, these were taken care of by Secretariat I.
Q.Do you know Mr. Gritzer?
A.Yes. He was in charge on the Office of Secretariat II which was called, for short, "Secretarist," and was under me.
Q.By reason of your work, were you in close contact with Privy Councillor Duisberg?
A.Yes.
Q.Then, perhaps you may briefly characterize his significance as an economic leader and as a personality in the Farben industry.
A.Yes, while I was at Leverkusen Geheimrat Duisberg was chairman of the Aufsichtsrat and Verwaltungsrat of the I.G. Farben Industry. He remained at this position until his death in 1935. In his fuction as chairman of the Verwaltungsrat, he attended the meetings of the Central Committee, Aside from Bosch, he was the influential person in Farben and he had a decisive influence on the position taken by the Verwaltungsrat. As economic leader he held the point of view of cooperation between industry and agriculture and also between employer and employee organizations. In the field of trade with foreign countries, he was an advocate of free trade and advocated the removal of customs barriers in Europe, As early as in 1931 in a major speech he suggested that the problem of European economic collaboration should be tackled practically and a European customs union should be prepared by, first of all, obtaining an understanding in Central and Southeastern Europe and then an economic agreement with France and Western European countries. An open economic area from Bordeaux to Sofia, regulated by voluntary agreement of all participants in their own interest was the first practical prerequisite for a European economic organization which then in the larger sphere might collaborate with a Pan-American economic system, an Empire system and a Russian system and might reach extensive COURT VI CASE VI understanding and agreement in the economic field.
Q.Was Duisberg thinking of political expansion in that connection?
A.No. That was not his idea. He supported the efforts of the Weimar Republic and particularly the Bruening government to restore Germany's equality but he was an advocate of the policy of Stresemann who wanted to obtain equality by peaceful means, by negotiation, and who had had certain initial success.
Q.That brings us to the political attitude of Duisberg. Was it attempted to recruit Duisberg for National Socialism?
A.Yes, Geheimrat kirdorf wrote to him to this effect. Thyssen repeatedly tried to win him over to National Socialism and about 1930 the chief editor of the Boersenzeitung Funk wanted to visit Dulsberg to get him interested in Hitler.
Q.Did these efforts succeed?
A.No. Duisberg refused in writing to Kirdorf. From repeated remarks made by Duisberg, I know that he refused Thyssen's efforts, too, and on this account the relations became strained between them. He did not receive Funk at all. In 1932 there was a presidential election. He abandoned his political reserve and became unhesitatincly a supporter of Hindenburg in the election since, he says here, it was the only way to prevent a seizure of power by Hitler.
Q.Did you share Geheimrat Duisberg's attitude?
A.Of course; otherwise, I couldn't have done my duties with a clear conscience.
DR. ASCKEHAUER:In order to substantiate Dr. Gatteneau's testimony, I shall offer document, Gattineau No. 7. This is an affidavit of Professor Dr. Heinrich Konen, the Rector of the Bonn University. This will become Gattineau Exhibit No. 2. The witness, after 1 again became the rector of the Bonn University and Minister for Culture at North-Rhine -- that is Westphalia. He confirms the rejecting attitude of Geheimrat Duisberg towards National Socialism. With respect to Dr. Gattineau's personality he states that he -- and 1 quotes: "Advocated the views and policy of his chief warmly and from his innermost conviction."
In order to substantiate the political economical attitude of Geheimrat Duisberg, I shall now submit Gattineau Document No. 8 which is an excerpt from the book, "Dissertations, Lectures and Speeches from the Years 1922 to 1933 by Carl Duisberg." This document will become Gattineau Exhibit No. 3.
The next document will be Gattineau Document No. 9. This is an excerpt from the book, "Carl Duisberg, German Industrialist," published by Dr. Herle and Dr. Gattineau. This will become Gattineau Exhibit No. 4. This excerpt shows Geheimrat Dulsberg's opinion on the relationship between politics and economics.
Gattineau Document No. 10 is an affidavit of Erwin Kritzer. This will become Gattineau Exhibit No. 5. The witness who from 1920 up to his death was the office manager of the Economic Secretariat for Geheimrat Dulsberg confirms the anti-National Socialistic attitude of Geheimrat Duisberg and substantiates his attitude with a few facts. He illuminates the part which Duisberg played during the international industrial negotiations.
The last document pertaining to the same sphere is an article by Professor Henry E. Armstrong from the Times, dated 27 March 1935. This article was published on the occasion of the death of Geheimrat Duisberg.
MR. SPRECHER:This document is not only incompetent but it has been previously ruled incompetent by this Tribunal, if I am not mistaken.
DR. ASCHEHAUER:Your Honor, I should like to be permitted to finish my submission of evidence before the prosecution makes their objection.
THE PRESIDENT:You are entitled to.
DR. ASCHEHAUER:It is incorrect that the document has already been ruled upon. Morever, I may give my reasons for the submission of that document. It would have been advisable for Mr. Sprecher to give reasons for his objection but I assume that is is Mr. Sprecher's point of view that the defense is not permitted to submit contemporaneous excerpts from the press or from books.
Before me I have a list extending to about two pages and I have actually tried to select all the excerpts from the press and from the book COURT VI CASS VI which the prosecution has already submitted.
If it is the point of view of the prosecution that contemporary excerpts from books and from the press cannot be submitted, then the prosecution itself should have adhered to that rule.
The prosecution has submitted excerpts from periodicals, from "Mein Kampf." excerpts from economic articles, excerpts from the Manual of the German Shareholding Corporation, excerpts from the "Voelkischer Bedbachter," excerpts from the book of Carl Guth about the Reichsgroup Industry.
This is a chapter which is in connection with the personality of Duisberg. The prosecution in their indictment repeatedly quoted Mr. Duisberg. The indictment asserts that Mr. Duisberg and Mr. Bosch were the significant personalities for the policy of Farben. The indictment has furthermore submitted a number of documents referring to the same subject as I. For that reason I think that this objection on the part of the prosecution has no justification whatsoever. It leads to the assumption of a one-sided course of action.
MR. SPRECHER:Mr. President, my best argument is really what the learned doctor has just said himself. The documents, as he cited, were contemporaneous German documents which had to do with knowledge which had to do with knowledge which had to do with the applicable regulations of the time in Germany. They were not books of opinion written as an obituary by someone outside which is the nature of this little obituary written by someone for the London Times, a person not even identified, and they were of an entirely different character than the documents about which my learned friend is just speaking.
THE PRESIDENT:The Tribunal will rule on the objection at nine o'clock tomorrow morning. The Tribunal is now in recess.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 0900 hours 22 April 1948).
COURT VI CASE VI COMMISSION Official Transcript of Hearing before a Commissioner for Military Tribunal VI, Case VI, in the matter of The United States of America against Karl Krauch, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 21 April 1948, Commissioner Johnson T. Crawford presiding.
THE MARSHAL:The Commission of Tribunal VI is now in session.
DR. HERNDT:Mr. Commissioner, the witness de Haas is in the witnessstand; he has given an affidavit for the Defendants Mann and Ilgner.
THECOMMISSIONER: (TO THE COURT MARSHAL:) Will you see about the witness.
(EMIL de HAAS, a WITNESS, took the stand and testified as follows):
The witness will hold up his right hand and repeat after me:
"I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will omit and add nothing.
Witness, you may be seated.
All right, defense counsel, you may proceed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BERNDT:
Q.Witness, may I ask you to state your personal data?
What is your full name?
A.Emil do Haas.
Q.Where do you live?
A.In Minden, Westphalia.
Q.And when were you born?
A.On 23rd May 1891.
Q.May I ask you how long you were with the Bayer Sales Combine, or rather how long you worked for the Bayer Sales Combine?
A.I did not work particularly for the Bayer Sales Combine. I was not active for them, but I worked in Berlin-NW/7, Unter den Linden.
Q.And how long did you work for Farben?
A.From October 1933 until 1945.
Q.You made an affidavit which we have introduced as Mann Document No. 138, Exhibit No. 169. Do you have that before you?
COURT VI CASE VI COMMISSION
A.Yes.
Q.Did you read that through again during the last few days?
A.Yes.
Q.Do you wish to add or correct anything concerning that affidavit?
A.About the Farben Kontor Riga I would like to add something.
Q.Please do.
A.The foundation was not actually a new foundation, as it stated here, because Farben only resumed that business activity with that firm which had been interrupted since the Russian occupation.
Q.I understand.
May I ask another question here? Apart from Farben, did any other German firm have such a branch, say in Riga, or any other city in the East?
A.In the so-called Ostland, the Eastern Territory, which at that time meant the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania), various other firms also had branches there and also chemical firms.
Q.Can you give me a few examples?
A.Concerning chemical firms I know Seherin, Riedel, De Hann, Wacker, Chemie, and smaller firms, such as Poschel; then, Krupp, Haniel, and Siemens.
Q.I believe that is sufficient, witness.
A.And there were a few more.
Q.There is nothing further which you wish to add?
A.No.
Q.I have no further questions myself then, Mr. Commissioner.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. NEWMAN:
Q.Mr. do Haas, I understand you speak English fluently.
A.Yes.
Q.You may, at your convenience, answer either in English or in German. What do you prefer?
A.I shall answer in German.
COURT VI CASE VI COMMISSION
Q.That's all right.
Now, you have your affidavit of February 9, 1948 before you. This is Document No. 138, Mann's Document Book III, Page 85, Mann's Exhibit No. 169.
A.Yes, I have that in front of me.
QI refer to Nos. 6 and 7 of this affidavit, where you comment upon your so-called Situation Report of January 3, 1942. I think it's a misprint that you say there "1943." What is correct is "1942." is that right?
A.Yes, that's correct. That is a printing mistake.
Q.Now, this Situation Report is Prosecution Exhibit 1175, our Document Book 63, English Page 37, and German Page 33. You state, among other things, that the contents of this report is just summing up the information you had received from official ageacies.
Now, when you made this affidavit was your Situation Report, at that time, before you?
A.No, at the time I made this report in Minden I did not have the Situation Report in front of me.
Q.So you were not given an opportunity to produce this report when you made your affidavit?
A.No, as I said, I made it in Minden and not here in Nuernberg. Therefore, I did not have that document in Minden.
Q.Then, you made that document on this Situation Report, although you had not seen this report for about six years? Is that right?
A.That is right.
Q.Thank you; I have no further questions from the witness.
REDIRECT-EXAMINATION BY DR. BERNDT:
Q.Witness, you just told us that when making your affidavit in Minden you did not have this report of 3 January 1942 in front of you.
A.That's correct.
Q.Have you recently seen the report of do Haas of 3 January 1942?
COURT VI CASE VI COMMISSION
A.Yes, I have road it recently.
Q.Is that report correct? Do you wish to add or correct anything in this report?
A.No, the report is correct.
Q.Because you have now read this report, do you wish to add or change anything in your Minden affidavit?
A.No.
Q.Now, I would like to ask you to tell me, do you know from the Exhibit 1175 of the Prosecution, that Herr Mann sent a copy of the report to the other members of the Vorstand and the members of the Commercial Committee?
A.Yes.
Q.Do you wish to add anything to that?
A.No, I would merely like to state that the reports were not always sent to the members of the Vorstand, and the members of the Commercial Committee, but only when they were of general interest. But these more extensive reports, like the do Haas report, were only informational reports. That was the nature of the matter because the Eastern Committee did not have any mandate to give directives for Farben's activities in the East nor to authorize any such activity. Decisions concerning that--I would like to emphasize again--with respect to the commercial field, were made only by the Commercial Committee, and not by the Eastern Committee.
Q.Tell me, why did you mark this informational report "Highly Confidential"?
It says so on top.
A.That was the nature of the matter. Information which was given to us by the agencies could not be considered to be freely shown to the public, and in order to avoid difficulties, of course, we treated those matters in such a confidential manner as they were handed to us.
Q.Will you finally tell me, briefly, where you got your information COURT VI CASE VI COMMISSION for this report and for other reports?
A.Mainly from the Ministry of Economics, but also partly from the Eastern Ministry, and also from the Eastern Office, the Ost Buero. I don't know if that was the name, but that was something similar to an Eastern Office.
Court VI, Case VI (COMMISSION)
QThis was part of the Four-Year Plan?
Court another firm, which was not Farben, also have received this information?
AYes.
QDid other firms also try to get information?
AI am convinced of that. I am certain that all firms including those which had branches in the Eastern Territory, tried to gather some information about the position there and asked the offices for information.
AI have no further questions.
THE COMMISSIONER:Does any other member of the Defense wish to interrogate?
DR. NATH:Mr. Commissioner, the Witness do Haas in Document Book Ilgner No. 5 (that is Ilgner Document No. 85), gave an affidavit which bears the Exhibit No. 93.
REDIRECT -EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. NATH:
QMr. do Haas, do you have this, your affidavit, in front of you?
AYes.
QDo you wish to add or change anything concerning this affidavit?
AI would like to state here that concerning the activiy of the Carl Schurz Association, a great deal could be said, but on the whole I believe that this affidavit gives a general impression of the activity of the Carl Schurz Association.
QThank you. I have no further questions.
MRS. KAUFMAN:Mary Kaufman for the Prosecution.
RECROSS-EXAMTNATTON BY MRS. KAUFMAN:
QMr. de Haas, what was your position in the Carl Schurz Association?
AI started my activity in the Carl Schurz Association as Chief of the Office of the President. After the new Carl Schurz house had been opened -- this was about March 1934 -when the Vice President, Dr. Mosle, who was in charge of the business secotr, left. This was, as far as I recall, in the latter half of the year 1934. Then, I was in charge of the business part of the Carl Schurz Association under the immediate supervision of the Vice President, Dr. Draeger, who was also in the same house; and I kept that position until a state of war occurred between United States and us in the year 1941.
QWere you on the payroll of the Carl Schurz Association?
ANo, my salary I received was about 200 Marks, and this was added to my salary which I got from Farben; therefore, it was considered Farben's contribution to the cultural association.
QWhat was the salary that you received from I.G. Farben?
AThat increased. I believe I started to work for Farben and received about 600 Marks a month. Then, I got 800 Marks, and later 1000 Marks, and at the end I believe it was 1200 Marks a month.
QNow, I believe you stated in your affidavit, Ilgner's Exhibit No. 93, that you were employed for a month or so in I.G. Farben before you assumed your activities in the Carl Schurz Association.
AYes.
QIsn't it true, Mr. de Haas, that you were recommended to Dr. Ilgner for employment until the fall of 1943, by Hans Draeger, the Vice President of the Carl Schurz Association? Is that right?
AYes, that is correct.
QDid you actually assume any duties for I.G. Farben Court VI, Case VI (COMMISSTON) at the time you were employed, until the time you undertook activity for the Carl Schurz Association?