Slave labor, the depriving of human beings of freedom of movement, freedom of action, becomes a meaningless concept in an environment where human life, human dignity, decency and morality were completely, deliberately, and coldly subordinated to the goal of production efficiency The lack of familiar analogy makes it almost impossible to grasp the enormity of the scope and the nature of the crimes committed by the defendants. In order to understand the gravity of the crimes here charged against the responsible officials of I.G. Farben; in order to appreciate the incredible inhumanity of Farben's ruthless drive for production and profit; in order to grasp Farben's unbelieveable-
THE PRESIDENT:Counsel, yield to the Defense.
DR. VONMETZLER (Counsel for defendant Haefliger) : I would like to raise an objection, with your Honors' permission. I think this is mere argument and, therefore, it is not proper to refer to all these points at this time. I make an objection.
THE PRESIDENT:Objection is sustained.
MR. MINSKOFF:The nature and the details of the crimes alleged in Count III-C have been set forth rather fully in the Indictment. Because of the nature of those allegations it was thought that it might be helpful to include portions of the Indictment at appropriate places in the document book preceding the documents which support the allegations made. At the beginning of Document Book 72, the appropriate portion of the Indictment refers to the seeking of a site for the fourth Buna factory, the COURT VI CASE VI finding of this site at Auschwitz, and the knowledge that the site chosen was the site of a concentration camp, and the availability of slave labor at that concentration camp.
The Prosecution offers in evidence Document NI-
DR.GATHER (Counsel for Defendant Ambros): I should also like to object to the statements made by the Prosecution up to this time. This obviously was pure argumentation and not submission of evidence.
THE PRESIDENT:Does your associate-counsel wish to be heard?
DR. VON METZLER:With Your Honors' permission, I should like to raise an objection against a certain sentence of the introduction to the Index of the Document Book 72, reading as follows: "In recommend said locations, the defendant Ambros called specific attention to the available labor supply from the concentration camp in that area."
In viewing this sentence in connection with the following sentence, "The Vorstand approved the recommendations and authorized the construction of a Buna plant at Auschwitz;" this gives the impression that the only reason-at least the chief reason--for recommending the area of Auschwitz as a site for the prospective Buna plant was that fact, that the available labor supply from the concentration camp Auschwitz was at hand and that the Vorstand accepted this point, and, therefore, decided to build the new Buna plant in the area of Auschwitz.
Now, as far as I can see from the documents presented in this book, there is no document which is supporting this book, there is no document which is supporting this allegation of the Prosecutions. To the contrary, if I may draw respectfully Your Honors' attention to the affidavit of Ambros--this is page 48 and 49 of the English book, page COURT VI CASE VI 48, Ambros states:
"Fritz Ter Meer and I advised TEA of this assignment: namely, to build the fourth Buna plant, and the TEA and all the Vorstand respectively decided to build the Buna plant and a methanol plant..."
THE PRESIDENT:If counsel will pardon an interruption, we can answer both matters, that have just been suggested, very briefly. The Tribunal sustained the objection to the statement of the Prosecution upon the theory that it was argumentative and not a statement of facts which the Prosecution expects to establish. In so far as a part of that statement came in Without an objection, we can now state on the record that the Tribunal will consider that as argumentative and it will not be considered in the determination of the merits of the case. As to the second proposition, the Tribunal does not regard the statement at the top of the Index to this document book as bearing any proper relationship to this case, from a standpoint of evidence.
We note that the documents that are indexed are to be offered in support of Count III-C of the Indictment. That is sufficient for our purpose. We shall strike out the matter to which counsel referred.
Counsel for the Prosecution may proceed.
Court No. VI, Case No. VI.
MR. MINSKOFF:May it please the Court, I would like to merely mention that we stated a moment ago, the only purpose for including portions of the -
THE PRESIDENT:Counsel, please, we have ruled and there is nothing to discuss. Proceed With your next step and conserve the time as best we can.
MR. MINSKOFF:The Prosecution offers the following documents:
NI-11181 as Prosecution's Exhibit 1408.
THEPRESIDENT: 11181 to you meant?
MR. MINSKOFF: NI-11181.
THE PRESIDENT:Your Exhibit number?
MR. MINSKOFF: 1408.
THE PRESIDENT:Thank you.
MR. MINSKOFF:NI-11110, as Prosecution's Exhibit 1409;
NI-11733, as Prosecution's Exhibit 1410;
NI-11784, as Prosecution's Exhibit 1411;
NI-11785, as Prosecution's Exhibit 1412;
NI-11112, as Prosecution's Exhibit 1413.
DR.KRAUSS, (counsel for the defendants Professor Lautenschlaeger and Prof. Jaehne): Your Honors, I raise an objection against this manner of presentation of documents. It is impossible for me to even approximately follow this presentation as to its contents, and to gain any clarification whether and how I can object to the documents in question.
THE PRESIDENT:Counsel for the defense has no doubt had this document book for the length of time required by the rules of the Tribunal, and presumably is familiar with the contents of the document, and the index, not only that, but the Trubunal has indulged in a very liberal policy of allowing objections to be made within a reasonable time after the document has been introduced in evidence.
Under the circumstances, we do not thing that there is anything wrong with the procedure of the Prosecution. We may say in passing that we understand, on the contrary, that this is consistent with the uniform policy of one Tribunal that is operating in this building. I should like to say one thing further to counsel for the Prosecution.
It is your first appearance and the President has in mind, in the presentation of documents of your associates here. Please do not understand that when we sustained an objection to the statement that you were making, that we were refusing to hear you make a summary of your documents. We sustained the objection upon the theory that what you were saying was argumentative rather than a statement of what the document established, and you may use your own judgment about how you proceed. If you care to you can summarize the documents as you present them, or you may summarize them in a group, or you may submit them as you are now submitting them.
MR. MINSKOFF:Thank you. I understand that.
I believe that the last document was NI-11112, as Prosecution's Exhibit 1413; NI-11113, is offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 1414;
NI-11782, is offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 1415.
The Prosecution asks the Tribunal to note particularly that in this group of documents which consists of meetings and inspection trips related to the finding of the site Auschwitz, the fact that certain considerations were present. The Court's attention is called particularly to Prosecution's Exhibit 1410, on pages 11 and 12 of the English and 17 of the German, where in the letter to the defendant, Ambros, it is mentioned that:
"At present, the locality of Auschwitz is outside the police jurisdiction of the German Reich area. It appears that it is at present still being used as a reservoir of Jewish manpower. Since it may be expected that the greater part of the inhabitants will be evacuated when construction begins in view of the population policy, there would be quitable quarters to accommodate building workers and later on, factory staff".
DR.GATHER, counsel for the defendant Ambros:
I object to the interpretation of the excerpt which was just quoted from document NI-11783, Exhibit 1410. The Prosecution designated this excerpt as a letter. Neither has this become evident from the document, nor is it identifiable in its context as a letter. We are here concerned with excerpts from the minutes of the Conference.
THE PRESIDENT:If counsel pleases, the Tribunal cannot use its time to censor the statements of counsel, whether it be for the Prosecution or for the Defense, as to what they deem a written document to be or to mean.
After all, in the final analysis, the document will speak for itself. What it is will appear from the order, from such further evidence as may be produced here, as to what it is or what it is thought to be. If we had to referee controversies that would arise between counsel for the two sides as to what a document is or means, there would be no limit whatsoever on the time that would be required because we dare say each issue of fact would be controverted.
The objection is overruled.
Counsel for the Defense, were you directing your remarks to what counsel said, or to the interpretation.
Perhaps I misunderstood you. My associate says he things you were speaking of the index statement.
DR. GATHER:No, Your Honor, with my remark I referred to the interpretation of this document as being a letter. I thought that it was obviously an error on the part of the member of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT:The index appears to be the same. We shall note opposite the index a question mark which will reserve to the defense the question that it does not agree that the index properly summarizes the document. That will afford you the protection to which you are entitled.
DR. GATHER:Thank you.
MR. MINSKOFF:It might be helpful to note that there is a double reference in the index saying, "Letter enclosing extract". That might have been confusing.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well. That is not evidence anyway. It won't hurt him any.
MR. MINSKOFF:The Court's attention is also respectfully called to the Prosecution's Exhibit 1411, page 21, pardon me, 14 of the English, and 21-22 of the German, where in the minutes of a discussion between the defendant Ambros and others, the following appears:
"The inhabitants of Auschwitz consist of 2000 Germans, 4000 Jews and 7000 Poles. The Germans are peasants. The Jews and Poles, if industry is established here, will be turned out, so that the town will then be available for the staff of the factory. For this reason it will not, at least at first, be necessary to build many dwellings, because an adaptation of the existing houses, at least to a certain extent, will probably be possible. A concentration camp will be built in the immediate neighborhood of Auschwitz for the Jews and the Poles."
The prosecution also asks the Court to note that in
THE PRESIDENT:This would be a good place to stop. Are there any necessary announcements before we adjourn for the day?
Has the Prosecution anything?
MR. DUBOIS:We will have these witnesses, and if for some reason they do not get here, we will go on with documents.
THE PRESIDENT:The Tribunal will rise until ninethirty tomorrow morning.
(Court in recess until 9:30 November 6, 1947.)
Official Transcript of the Aermical Military Tribunal Number 6 in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Krauch, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 6 November 1947, 0930, Justice Shake presiding.
THE MARSHAL:The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal No. 6.
Military Tribunal 6 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Marshal, you may report on the presence of the defendants.
THE MARSHAL:May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of Ilgner and Kugler.
THE PRESIDENT:The defendants Ilgner and Kugler will be excused from attendance at today's session by order of the Tribunal, on account of reasons and circumstances which the Tribunal deems sufficient.
Has the Prosecution any preliminary announcements?
ME. SPRECHER:Mr. President, we plan to continue today with the presentation of documents, but sometime in the afternoon we shall possible call some witnesses, if it appears to be in good order at that time.
THE PRESIDENT:Thank you. Anything to be said by the Defense before we start?
Prosecution may proceed with the introduction of its evidence.
MR. MINSKOFF:May it please the Court, referring to Prosecution Exhibit 1412, the Court's attention is called to the fact that in this document, as in the previous exhibit, it is indicated that one of the considerations for choosing Auschwitz as a site for the Buna plant is the existence of the concentration camp Auschwitz.
On page 19 of the English and 33 and 34 of the German it is stated that: "West and southwest of Auschwitz a terrain of approximately ten kilometers is to be used for a concentration camp settlement. The concentration camp already existing with approximately 7,000 prisoners is to be expanded. Employment of prisoners for the building project is possible after negotiations with the ReichsfuehrerSS."
The document is a memorandum for the files, and the defendant Ambros heads the distribution list. With reference-
DR.SEIDL (Counsel for the defendant Duerrfeld): Your Honors, in view of the fact that the Prosecution, in connection with Exhibit 1412, has just made statements which, according to their nature, are argumentative, I consider it to be my duty to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that a correct representation of this document would require the Prosecution to name the ten points which are enumerated previously-
THE PRESIDENT:Counsel...
DR.SEIDL: --and according to which-
THE PRESIDENT:Counsel, we have indicated before: you are not bound by statements that the Prosecution makes when it offers a document in evidence. The statements of counsel are what counsel conceives the purpose of the document to be, which is always weighed in the light of what the document is.
Are you directing your remarks at the index or the verbal remarks of counsel?
DR. SEIDL:My remarks refer to the interpretation of this document by the Prosecution and they do not refer to the index.
THE PRESIDENT:Then your motion is overruled. That is no part of the document or the evidence.
MR. MINSKOFF:With reference to the Prosecution's Exhibit 1413 and 1414, it is merely noted that the defendants Ambros, Krauch and Ter Meer were all in on the initial planning of the Buna factory at L.G. Auschwitz.
Prosecution now offers Document No. NI-4182, as Prosecution Exhibit 1416. This is an affidavit of the defendant Buetefisch, With leave of the Court, the Prosecution would like to call special attention to particular excerpts of the affidavit. In paragraph 2 it is stated that:
"In the winter of 1940-41, Otto Ambros, together with Krauch's office and the Vorstand of I. G. Farben, suggested Auschwitz as a suitable site because the composition of the soil, the availability of coal water and limestone as well as, according to a statement of the labor Office, the supply of labor, for example Poles and inmates of the concentration camp Auschwitz, favored the construction of the Buna plant and the subsequent production respectively. In 1941 a meeting of the Vorstand approved the money for the construction project of the new I. G. Auschwitz."
In paragraph 5 it is stated that: "TEA and the Vorstand did not object against the use of concentration camp inmates at I.G. Auschwitz."
The Prosecution now offers Document NI-1240 as its Exhibit 1417. This is an order issued by Goering to Himmler, dated 18 February '41, and marked "copy for Krauch." The Prosecution calls particular attention to the fact that all the three measures directed by the order have been mentioned in the documents just introduced by the Prosecution relating to the selection of the I.G. Auschwitz site. The Goering order, which appears on page 39 of the English and 66 of the German, includes the following measures, that: "1. The Jews at Auschwitz and in the surrounding area must be quickly expelled especially for the purpose of clearing their lodgings in order to billet the construction workers of the Buna plant."
"2. Preliminary permission for the Poles in Auschwitz and the surrounding area who may be used as construction workers, to stay in their present lodgings until the termination of the construction works."
"3. Availability of the largest possible number of skilled and unskilled construction workers from the adjoining concentration camp for the construction of the Buna plant."
May it please the Court, the Prosecution would like to note that the documents heretofore submitted with reference to the construction site all predate this Goering order.
The Prosecution now offers Document NI-7604, asits Exhibit 1418, and asks the Court to note paragraph 6 of the affidavit of the document which appears on page 42 of the English and page 70 of the German.
In paragraph 7, which appears on page 71 of the German, defendant Schneider declares that: "Neither the Technical Committee nor the Vorstand objected to the fact that the future Buna plant was being erected with the help of concentration camp prisoners."
In paragraph 11, which appears on page 43 of the English and 72 of the German, the Court's attention is called to the following contents. "In employing concentration camp prisoners I was aware that these people of varying social status were held in concentration camps for political and racial reasons.
This fact was known to the Vorstand of I.G."
The Prosecution offers as its next document, Document NI-9542, which is an affidavit of the defendant Ambros, as its Exhibit No. 1419. This is a rather long affidavit, and the Prosecution would like to call the Court's attention to just a few portions of the affidavit. The Court is requested to note paragraph 10, which appears on page 50 of the English and 85 of the German, where Ambros states that in his report to the "TEA he discussed credits, soil condition, labor allocation, etc., with I.G. Auschwitz." And he states specifically that mention was made of the fact that concentration camp inmates "are being used for the construction of the I.G. Auschwitz."
The Court's attention is also called to paragraph 12, which appears on page 51 of the English and 85-86 of the German. This paragraph describes what the defendant Ambros saw when he visited Auschwitz. In paragraph 23, which appears on page 58 of the English and 96 of the German, the defendant Ambros states: "The set-up of the concentration camp is something horrible. It is a torture for the inmates. One always felt hesitant, so to say, to speak about it. The other Vorstand members and I knew that apart from criminals one also held there people from all walks of life, people who were persecuted for political, racial or religious reasons."
Prosecution offers as its Exhibit 1420 NI-4033, which is an affidavit of the defendant Krauch. At this time the Prosecution merely calls attention to paragraph 10 of the affidavit, which appears on page 66 of the English and 106 of the German.
The defendant Krauch states; I quote: "The Executive Board (the Vorstand) of I.G. Farben, especially the members of the Executive Board, Schmitz, Tor Moor, Ambros and Buetefisch, were informed of the employment of concentration camp inmates with the I.G. Buna plant Auschwitz, and did not protest."
Prosecution offers NI-11114 as its Exhibit 1421 without comment.
The next document offered in evidence is NI-11086, as Prosecution Exhibit 1422.
This is introduced, your Honors, for the purpose of showing the implementation of the Goering order, Prosecution Exhibit 1417, as carried out by Himmler. The Prosecution calls special attention to the fact that the letter proceeds from the office of Krauch, is designated as "top secret" and is marked for the attention of defendant Ambros, with copies to defendants Ter Meer, Buetefisch and Duerrfeld.
The Prosecution offers without comment NI-4184 of the defendant Duerrfeld as its Exhibit 1423. Pending the decision of this Tribunal with respect to the admissibility of affidavits of deceased affiants, the Prosecution asks the Court to mark Document NI-034 as Prosecution Exhibit 1424 for identification.
MR. SPRECHER:Mr. President, this affidavit is the Hoess affidavit which came up previously in one of the cases which the Prosecution cited as a precedent to you the other day, and this document has already been admitted before one of the other Tribunals.
THE PRESIDENT:Do you desire that it carry a number for the purposes of this part of your presentation of 1424 if it is admitted in evidence, or should -
MR. SPRECHER:Mr. President, I meant to indicate it had been received in evidence in one of the other cases which I cited when I was making the argument the other morning.
THE PRESIDED:I understand.
DR.SEIDL (Counsel for the defendant Duerrfeld): Your Honor, I object to the submission of the document NI-034. It is correct; this affidavit has already been admitted in another trial; that was in Case IV. But there we have a case where the defense, at the time of introduction did not raise any objection as to its admissibility. Therefore, the problem never came up in Case IV. I not only, however, object to the admission of the affidavit because the affiant is deceased -- and I know that a basic decision has already been made by the Tribunal regarding that point but it is my opinion that the question of cross-examination of a deceased affiant can be important if other circumstances come up which tend to speak against the admissibility to raise this objection to the Tribunal at this time.
THE PRESIDENT:No, Counsel; sorry, but we cannot do that. The document has not even been offered to the Tribunal. The Prosecution, in order to keep track of where the document is and where it would fit into the proof, if it is offered and admitted, has simply given it a number which is the property of the Prosecution and is not even before the Tribunal. The Prosecution counsel's remarks with reference to it having been admitted in evidence was simply calling attention to the Court, that it was one of the documents involved in another proceeding, Which they mentioned in the argument as to the admissibility of documents of deceased persons.
The Tribunal is sure that the Prosecution did not undertake to suggest that because some other Tribunal had admitted it that it was before this Tribunal. Now, there is nothing now before the Tribunal. It may be that sometime the Prosecution will call up this document, which is only marked for its own identification, and offer it. If counsel for the Prosecution does so, you may then make whatever objection you have to make.
In the meantime, perhaps the Tribunal will have ruled in principle as to the admissibility of documents of deceased affiants.
DR. SEIDL:Let me only say that I obviously misunderstood Mr. Sprecher's remarks. I understood him to say that he would offer this document 034 in evidence at this time.
Now, of course, I have to withdraw my objection.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well.
MR. MINSKOFF:The Prosecution now offers Document NI-11827 as its Exhibit 1425. This document contains the minutes of a TEA. meeting of 19 March '41 at which the following defendants were present; Ter Meer, Schneider, Buetefisch, Ambros, Wurster, Lautenschlaeger, Joehne, Hoerlin, Kuehne, Buergin, Gejewski and von Knieriem.
On page 91 of the English and 147 of the German, the defendant Ambros reports on Auschwitz, and on page 91 of the English and 147 of the German the TEA appropriates 19,500,000 Reichsmark for Auschwitz.
The next document, if it please the Court, is NI-11115 and is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 1426. This document contains the minutes of the first construction conference of I.G. Auschwitz.
At the outset, the Prosecution respectfully refers the Court's attention to its Exhibit 1418, the affidavit of the defendant Schneider, where, on page 42 of the English and 70 of the German, it is stated that copies of the minutes of those construction conferences went to the defendants Ambros, Buetefisch, Ter Meer and Schmitz, in addition to himself.
(MR. MINSKOFF) With reference to the present document, 1426, the Court's attention is directed particularly to pages 106 and 197 of the English, 175 of the German where the defendant, Duerrfeld reports on the discussion with Wolff of the SS.
The report states (1) that it has been promised that 700 prisoners of the Auschwitz Concentration Camp will be assigned to the building site ofr labor, and (2) that a promise has been received that the head office of the SS will use their influence to effect an exchange within the Concentration Camps of the SS with the object of transferring skilled workers from the Reich to Auschwitz.
The Prosecution offers Document NO. NI 10854 as its Exhibit 1427. This document is a letter from the SS main office to the Commandant of the Concentration Camps Buchenwald and Auschwitz, and is introduced at this point to indicate that the arrangements referred to in the previous documents have actually been carried out, and at the Concentration Camp inmates were transferred from another Concentration Camp and brought to Auschwitz to work for I. G. Farben.
This letter appears on page 110 of the English, and 180-81 of the German.
The Prosecution offers as its Exhibit 1428. Document NI 11116. The Court's attention is called only to page 113 of the English, and 186 of the German, where the defendant Duerrfeld reports on his discussion with the camp commander Hoess. Duerrfeld reports, and I quote:
"Hoess is very willing to support the construction management to the best of his ability."
THE PRESIDENT:That completes the introduction of the documents in Book 72 of the Prosecution?
MR. MINSKOFF:That's right.
THE PRESIDENT:Now if the Prosecution pleases, are you going next to Book 73?
MR. MINSKOFF:That's right, Your, Honor.
THE PRESIDENT:May we not anticipate trouble for the moment and eliminate it. Does the prosecution have any objection to the striking out of the first part of this document that precedes the description of the documents?
MR. MINSKOFF:Referring to the quotation?
THE PRESIDENT:Is that purely a quotation from the indictment?
MR. MINSKOFF:That is all that it is.
THE PRESIDENT:That's all?
MR. MINSKOFF:That's all.
THE PRESIDENT:There is no use of striking that out, as far as that is concerned, that cannot cause anybody any trouble. On the Prosecution's statement that it is a quotation from the indictment, you may proceed.
MR. MINSKOFF:Thank you. Your Honor.
The first document in this book, No. 73, is a chart, NI 7968, and it is offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 1429. The chart is self-explanatory. It might be noted that the wall chart was prepared by the technicians in this building for the Prosecution based upon the chart which is now in evidence. There are differences in the sense that there are colors on the wall chart to make the certain portions stand Out; also there are English legends on the wall chart which do not appear in the documents.
I might add also that the designation of the Concentration Camp Auschwitz does not appear in the document book, and it was just added to the wall chart for what assistance it might be when the witness points to the various portions of the chart.
DR. SEIDL:Counsel for the defendant Duerrfeld:
Your Honor, I do not object to the admission of this chart as a piece of evidence. I merely ask you to give me an opportunity to make a short remark as to its designation.
The Prosecution designated Camp V, as "The Concentration Camp".
It is, the opinion of the Defense that the designation. "Concentration Camp" cannot be justified. It should read, "Work camp of the Concentration Camp Auschwitz". The Defense will bring up evidence to show that this Camp 4 which on the chart is designated, "Concentration Camp Monowitz" in reality was only one labor camp of which there were 500 throughout Germany, and which were subordinated to 14 large concentration camps.
I should also like to make another remark. The chart is incorrect in so far as from the year 1942 on there was a main road which had a lot of traffic on it, between the plant itself and Camp 4 which was the main road loading from Auschitz towards the east. This street was already in existence when the Camp V was founded in October 1942, and when the inmates moved in at the time, and I am referring to those who worked in the I. G. plant.
THE PRESIDENT:We will hear your associate counsel if he has anything to say before the Prosecution responds.
DR. GATHER:Counsel for the defendant Ambros:
I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that this exhibit which formed the basis for this chart on the wall, may be misleading inasmuch as we are here concerned with a confusion between projects and realities, and causing to arise therefrom the distortion and obscuring of details which are of paramount importance for the submission of evidence.
THE PRESIDENT:What verification of this map does the Prosecution suggest that justifies its admission in evidence/
MR. MINSKOFF:On the map itself, if the Court please, there is the certification of a Mr. Faust, who was the Chief Engineer at I. G. Auschwitz, a photostatic copy of which is now in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well.
MR. MINSKOFF:With respect to the points raised as to the designation of Camp 4 as Concentration Camp Monowitz, may I call the Tribunal's attention to the fact that the defendants themselves in the affidavits now before Your Honors, and I refer to the Prosecution Exhibit 1416, an affidavit of the defendant Buetefisch I think, - at any rate the defendants themselves in two or three of the affidavits which are now before the Court and have now been introduced in Book 7, themselves refer to Monowitz as, "Concentration Camp Monowitz".
THE PRESIDENT:The matter is not of very great significance, in view of the fact that the defendants are not bound by the designations that are put on a map by counsel which enable the court to visualize the exhibits. On the statement of the prosecution that there is some evidence that would warrant the designation of the Camp 5 as a concentration camp, the objection will be overruled The Tribunal deems it proper to say to counsel for the defense that you are not bound by the statement of the prosecution or the fact that there is some evidence that might justify that designation, and in your defense you may show what you think the proper designation is, and the question will be open in the minds of the Tribunals until we hear all of the evidence relating to the exhibit that we will conclude, if it becomes important for us to conclude what is the proper designation.
The objection will be overruled.
DR. GATHER:May I just draw your attention to another fact? The certification of this document by Dr. Faust merely says, and I quote: "The chart of the plant Auschwitz is a faithful projection of the original". This, however, does not say anything about the time that this cahrt was drawn up, nor is it recognizable whether the original would have become clearer through a number of colored symbols drawn in, which represent only projects.
THE PRESIDENT:The only importance of the circumstances of time is this. If the chart shows a condition that obtained at a time the Tribunal is unconcerned about, it would be pure surplussage; unless the chart relates to some period of time within the scopr of this inquiry, it would just encumber and burden the record with something unimportant. On the other hand, the defendants will have an adequate opportunity to point out whether or not the chart does relate to conditions as they existed at some period of time here under incuiry.