BY DR. DIX: You said, witness that the Kapos were to a great extent criminals and I should like to ask you whether these Kapos had the corresponding triangular insignia to indicate that they were criminals?
A.No, many of these Kapos had their criminal chevrons but I can say that I even myself in my detail 186, had political Kapos for he had a red chevron and he was a German Jew.
Q.Did you know the clerks of the offices and of the hospital and the camp administration? Did you know them by sight?
A.Yes, I saw some of them. In the infirmary there were many.
Q.Most of these clerks were political prisoners, I assume, with the red insignia?
A.Yes, in the infirmary I saw nothing but the red chevrons. In the office I also saw red and yellow triangles and amongst the block eldest there were some green triangles.
Q.Then the block eldest had the green insignia in many instances? Did I understand you correctly?
A.Yes. I can even indicate the blocks in which the block eldest had the green triangles in. Block 50 was a green chevron and in 52 there was a green one.
Q.And was it like that, that the group with the green triangle on the one hand, and the group with the red triangle on the other hand, held together very much and helped one another?
MR. MINSKOFF:May it please the Court, it's difficult to see what possible connection the line of questioning has to the affidavit in evidence.
DR. DIX:That's very important for the background and for conditions in the Concentration Camp. It will become important for evaluating the testimony touching the credibility of the various witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT:It may be regarded as preliminary. We cannot tell as to what it is leading but unless it's the intention of counsel to connect this inquiry up with the affidavit it should not be pursued.
We will leave it for counsel to say because we can't know what his object or purpose may be.
MR. SPRECHER:I don't have in my own mind any questions about the purpose of this type of testimony. I think you found out as the Tribunal what the objective of the testimony before was, when defense counsel started to ask people about their political affiliations. I had nothing to do with anything in the affidavit or, in my opinion, with the credibility of the witnesses. It's an attempt to insinuate the whole question as to whether or not some of these political persecutees of the Third Reich of Germany were Communists and, of course, many of them were Communists.
THE PRESIDENT:I think I recall that perhaps the Prosecution has gone into that question as much as the Defense.
MR. SPRECHER:That, your Honor, was because we think it's an impressive question and we may respectfully submit that it was tolerated and we want to bring out the full picture since that was allowed -
THE PRESIDENT:The proper remedy is to object to other counsel's questions and not commit a double error yourself. The Tribunal has ruled now and let's not take time and if counsel for the defense says these questions are preliminary and may lead to something that is within the scope of this affidavit -- if not it should not be asked. We cannot read his mind or know what his purpose may be and we will not surmise.
DR. DIX:I have only a very few questions in this direction and I believe that they are important for the evaluation of all of the affidavits that we have had up to now. But if this is inadmissible I shall discontinue this line of questions now and clarify this issue later if necessary. But the witness has expressly said in his affidavit that the administration was composed of criminals and I believe it's with in the scope of the affidavit if I try to clarify who were criminals and who were political prisoners and what was their attitude. The witness has said that the criminals were very unfriendly towards their fellow prisoners. I believe that all of these things are pertinent to the affidavit.
MR. SPRECHER:On the statement that "it may be useful in evaluating all of the affidavits", of course, the counsel himself has indicated it's beyond the scope of cross examination. Now, your Honor, if you will look at the affidavit, the statement about criminals has to do with the Kapos. Dr. Dix is not talking about Kapos. He is going into the administration inmates who were in other places and by that indirect means is attempting to bring in this whole political issue again.
THE PRESIDENT:The Tribunal has ruled and counsel may ask his question. Perhaps, counsel, you had better repeat it so that the witness understand it. BY DR. DIX:
Q.I asked whether these two groups, the green ones and the Red ones co-operated and helped one another, that is to say, the green ones helped each other and the red ones helped one another, each group among themselves?
A.I could not say exactly what were the relations but all that I say was that the Kapos talked among themselves and the colors talked among themselves. I cannot say exactly what were their relations.
Q.These Kapos remained in the camp and were seldom changed; is that not true?
A.Yes, and principally I saw ours, for instance. I could not, after all supervise whether all of the Kapos were transferred or not. Now, ours stayed with us for several months.
Q.And the other prisoners had to obey the Kapos, did they not?
A.Yes, in principle we had to obey everyone; his own Kapo but if another Kapo gave you an order, of course, you had to execute his work, too.
THE PRESIDENT:Any further cross examination? BY DR. DRISCHEL:
Q.Witness, I have only very few questions. You said in your affidavit something about gassing. Did you talk to any SS men or Kapos about gassings or did these people ever tell you anything about it?
A.Never have I talked to any SS. As to the SS, by the way, we were not permitted to approach them when they called us. We had to stop three meters in front of them. The Kapos told us about that pretty often and so did our comrades.
Q.And if you talked to I. G. foreman or civilians, did they talk in the presence of SS men about gassing or inhumane measures?
A.No, there was only one thing we were told very often which we always heard again, "you will go to the crematorium", but they did not talk about gassing.
Q.Did you have the impression or rather did it happen that in the presence of SS guards even the I. G. foreman were very carefully and timid in their conversations with you, or did they not talk to you at all then?
A.They were careful not to be seen talking to us.
DR. DRISCHEL:Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT:Anything further, gentlemen? Any redirect?
MR. MINSKOFF:Here's two points, if it please the Court, I would like to straighten out. There is a slight misunderstanding with respect to the Swastika badges. In the English it appears as Swastika badges. The German translation may create the impression of arm bands. The English is correct. Incidentially the original is in English. I move at this time that the questions and answers with respect to the co-operation between the political prisoners and the criminal prisoners be stricken from the record.
THE PRESIDENT:The motion will be overruled.
MR. MINSKOFF:No further questions, Your Honor.
DR. GIERLICHS:
A.Witness, do you know English?
A.Yes, I speak English. I can read it but I can't talk it very well.
Q.So that you could carry on a fluent conversation?
A.Well, fluently enough but I have difficulties in explaining myself but I can read and I can understand everything I read.
Q.Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT:Anything further from this witness? The Tribunal is about to excuse him. Witness, you are excused and the Marshal will escort you out. The Prosecution will call it's next witness.
MR. MINSKOFF:May it please the Court, at this time the Prosecution will proceed with documents in view of having exhausted the various witnesses that were called.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well.
MR. MINSKOFF:Book No. 77 is the next Document Book.
THE PRESIDENT:Just a moment, please. None of us have those books. Send for the books.
MR. SPRECHER:Mr. President, while we are waiting for the books to be brought in, might I make the announcements?
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, surely.
MR. SPRECHER:For Monday afternoon, the first time we sit, there will be the following four witnesses: Spotter, Pheiffer, and the two English witnesses, H artland and Doyle. Now, the affidavits of the last two witnesses either have been distributed late this afternoon, or will be distributed late this afternoon, and if you receive any of these, if you just put them in your Document Book 75, which contains the largest number of affidavits on this same subject. In case we run throught those witnesses-
THE PRESIDENT:Pardon me, are all of those affidavits in Book 75?
MR. SPRECHER:Your Honors, they have been distributed separately.
THE PRESIDENT:But they belong in Book 75?
MR. SPRICHER:Yes, And I might say that the first witness, Spetter, is Dutch, and the second one, Pheiffer, is French. If we should run through those witnesses on Monday afternoon, we will go on with the document books.
THE PRESIDENT:Now what books will you use, then, Monday afternoon, if we do get through the witnesses?
MR. MINSKOFF:Nos. 77, 78, and 79.
MR. SPRECHER:Those will be the books, continuing from 77: 77, 78, 79, 80, and 81.
DR.SEIDL (Counsel for the defendant Duerrfeld): Your Honor, we waived the calling of nine witnesses, who were British prisoners of war and who submitted affidavits. We did that in order to help expedite the proceedings. If, however, the Prosecution is currently submitting new affidavits which are not yet in evidence then we could have held on to the nine affidavits which are here. By that I merely want to say that our intention is now being foiled by the Prosecution bringing in now affidavits, about which we have had no idea so far at all. Up to now, no mention has been made of the witnesses Hartland and Doyle, and under these circumstances I should like to suggest to the Prosecution whether they would not consider just leaving the matter as they were with regard to the original witnesses.
Then we would withdraw our waiver and we would know exactly where we stand.
MR. SPRECHER:We don't propose to do any bargaining on this basis, and we never indicated that we intended to. That is not our purpose in trying to bring out the truth in this trial. However, we did tell the Defense counsel that there were two more British witnesses here whom we had originally intended to put on the witness stand without affidavits. However, because we think it gives a better opportunity in this trial for Defense counsel to prepare for cross-examination and for the record to be clear, we have agreed that we would put in only affidavits by these two people, Hartland and Doyle, as well as the other two witnesses who are not English.
THE PRESIDENT:Now, the Tribunal understands that when counsel for the Defense waives cross-examination and says that the witness may not be called, it is because they are familiar with the contents of the document, first; they have in mind other ways of meeting the question, either with their own witnesses or their own documents, when the time comes. We cannot allow this matter to be calculated on a basis of comparative numbers of the affidavits. This Tribunal has no control over the affidavits that the Prosecution may offer, nor will it have any control in that regard, at least with respect to any of the evidence that may be offered by any of the parties. We shall have to treat this waiver as effective. We have no way of controlling the evidence that the Prosecution may subsequently wish to offer.
When the additional affidavits are made available to you, the gentlemen of the Defense can determine then, whether they wish to make any further waivers or whether they wish to stand on their right to cross-examine the witness. Whatever your decision is, that will be the policy of the Tribunal in that regard.
That is all we can say, gentlemen.
DR. DIX:Your Honor, I only have one question, because I don't know American law and its principles. Even under the aspect of cumulative matters, are there no misgivings about the submission of a large number of affidavits which, after all, contain the same thing? It is only a question, if I may put it to your, I don't know whether you can reply to it.
THE PRESIDENT:I should not undertake at this time to speak for the Tribunal in that regard further than to observe that it is well established in our jurisprudence that purely cumulative evidence is within the control of the Tribunal. After a certain mass of evidence upon a certain point has been produced, it is proper for the opposing party to say that any additional evidence would only be cumulative. And it is within the sound judicial discretion of the Tribunal, then, to say whether it will listen to additional evidence of that character. That, however, is very frequently influenced by the fact as to whether the opposing party says they intend to contest it or do not intend to contest it.
We have hardly reached the point, I feel, where the Tribunal would yet feel that it would wish to impose that sort of restriction upon either side, but certainly it is not without the realm of possibility; in any event, if evidence appears to be purely cumulative, piling up a large volume of record, it is within the power of the Tribunal, on suggestion or on its own motion, to take the situation in hand and say it will hear no more on that score. As I say, however, that is frequently influenced by the attitude of the opposition as to whether they say they are making an issue of it, because, manifestly, if there is an issue made, the Tribunal would not be so disposed to place limitations upon either side.
DR.SEIDL: (Counsel for the defendant Duerrfeld): Your Honor, let me only add that the witnesses Pheiffer and Spetter, who are also to be heard on Monday, have so far not been included in the document books, and that here too we are concerned with additional witnesses. Even though they are not English PW's, after all, however, they are new affidavits, and it is becoming increasingly difficult for the Defense as to how and under what circumstances they can waive their cross-examination. After all, we don't know when the Prosecution will stop sending in affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, gentlemen, there is not much to discuss at this time. Of course, we would not expect counsel for the Defense to make any commitment as to whether or not it will or will not waive the crossexamination with respect to an affidavit it hasn't seen. You should have an opportunity, of course, to know what the affidavit is and to determine for yourselves whether you think it worth while to cross-examine the witness.
We understood from the Prosecution that those affidavits would be distributed to you this afternoon, as they will be to us. And if you need a bit of time Monday-you will have Monday forenoon, and if you need a little more time for a little while, perhaps we can receive some exhibits until you have an opportunity to determine.
In view of the discussion that has intervened since the last witness was excused, it is hardly worth while now to start on the introduction of exhibits.
Have you any further announcement, Mr. Prosecutor?
MR. SPRECHER:None, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT:Does the Defense have anything to say at this time?
(No response)
Then bear in mind, gentlemen, that when we rise today it will be until 1:30 p.m. next Monday.
The Tribunal will now rise.
(At 1625 hours, 14 November 1947, a recess was taken until 1330 hours, Monday, 17 November 1947)
Official Transcript of American Military Tribunal VI in the matter of the United States of America against Carl Krauch, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 17 November 1947, 0930-1630, The Honorable Curtis G. Shake presiding.
THE MARSHAL:The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal VI. Military Tribunal VI is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT:The Marshal may report with respect to the attendance of the defendants.
THE MARSHAL:May it please your Honor, all defendants are present in court.
THE PRESIDENT:Has the Prosecution any preliminary remarks?
MR. SPRECHER:Mr. President, either just now or in a little while I would like to correct certain parts of the record.
THE PRESIDENT:You may do it now if you are ready.
MR. SPRECHER:I am ready.
On the 28th of August, in the transcript at page 208, the Prosecution offered the following document, No. 2760-A--PS, as Exhibit No. 5. This was an excerpt from Hitler's "Mein Kampf", "My Battle". The English translation at that time read "41st Edition", instead of "39th Edition", as is shown by the exhibit which was handed to the Secretary General. The error originated from an erroneous translation or transcription of the Roman numeral thirty-nine. We now resubmit both English and German mimeographed copies which have been appropriately corrected. They should be marked pages 25 to 28-B in the English Document Book No. 1; and in the German Document Book No. 1, pages 24 to 28. I have seen that copies have gotten to the Secretary and to the Defense Counsel. The original exhibit handed over to the Secretary General remains, of course, unchanged.
The objection raised -- Excuse me, Mr. President. May I assume, then, that Exhibit No. 5 is now in evidence?
THE PRESIDENT:We take it there will be no objection to that correction of the record, and the record will be considered amended and corrected accordingly and the proper substitution made of the exhibit.
MR. SPRECHER:Mr. President, the exhibit remains the same in this case, it is only the translation.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, we so understand.
MR. SPRECHER:Because the objection was made to Exhibit No. 5, the Prosecution did not offer another document in Document Book No. 1 at that time. We now offer another set of excerpts from the same edition of "Mein Kampf", which has been given the Document No. PS-2760-B. We would like to offer that as Exhibit 1496. This should replace the Document PS-9358, in English Document Book No. 1, pages 29-31. That document was not offered in evidence, so it may be neglected by your Honors and, instead, will you please consider Prosecution Exhibit 1496. The appropriate page of the transcript is page 212. At that time, Mr. President, you observed that there was nothing before the Tribunal concerning the document because the Prosecution had not offered it. We have made the necessary number of English and German mimeographed copies available. If you will insert your new document in Book 1 at pages 29 and 30, I think it will correct the matter. In the German document book it would be inserted in Book I at pages 30 through 32.
THE PRESIDENT:The document identified as Prosecution Exhibit 1496is admitted in evidence.
MR. SPRECHER:Mr. President, on the 4th of September, 1947, document NI-5764 was offered as Exhibit 236 and received in evidence. That is in Document Book 8, page 166. It was a file note of the Technical Committee, the TEA. Dr. Gierlichs objected to the document at that time on the ground that there might be some question as to whether or not it was a proper piece of evidence from the TEA files, and although your Honors admitted it, you stated that the weight to be given to that piece of evidence might be affected by whether or not the Prosecution made some further showing with respect to its authenticity.
I have here in my hand, for the perusal of Defense Counsel, the original folder containing the file copy. I would like to offer, for the exhibit file, a certificate by Miss Esther Glassman, which lists a number of documents also found just prior to the document in question, as well as some afterwards, to indicate, by the chronology and by the placement of that document, that it was clearly taken from a file which does contain other file notes of the Technical Committee.
Now I merely ask that this be placed with the certificate in the exhibit file. A copy is available for Defense Counsel to check if they wish.
THE PRESIDENT:Is there any objection?
If not, the certificate may be placed in the folder with the original exhibit and made a part of the record.
MR. SPRECHER:There are three small corrections, mostly in the German transcript, which I would like to make, because it will take only one or two minutes, and I think any other procedure, Mr. President, would cause a very great amount of technical problems.
THE PRESIDENT:These relate to errors in the German books?
MR. SPRECHER:Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well.
MR. SPRECHER:At the request of Dr. Bachem, a change has been made by way of an errata sheet to the German copies of Exhibit 339, which is NI-6649. In the eigth line the name "Kersten" appears, and, as Dr. Bachem points out, that should be "Krueger".
In Document Book 11 there are four corrections in translation which have been brought to our attention by Dr. Storkebaum, Counsel for the Defendant Schneider. They concern Document NI-9735, Exhibit 317, and Document NI-6846, Exhibit 318.
In NI-9753, Exhibit 317, in Book II, at page 187 of the English -that appears at page 213 of the German -- "Landesfinanzamt" should be translated as "County Treasury" instead of "Country Treasury".
In Document NI-6846, Exhibit 318 -- and all of the next corrections will apply to that document, at page 189, line 6 of the English -- that appears at page 216, line 5 of the German -- the following word, "Installationsgeschaeftsinhaber", should be translated as "owner of a plumbing firm", instead of "electric fittings business".
And then, at page 190 of the English appearing at page 219 of the German, in the last sentence the word "Hauptabwehrbeauftragter" should be translated as "Chief Counter-Intelligence Officer", instead of "Chief Security Officer."
The last correction on that document is at page 191 of the English, page 220 of the German. The word "Appell" should be translated "shop meeting" and not merely "meeting".
The last correction I would like to bring to the attention of the Tribunal and the record is also in Document Book 11. It is a correction to the German. An errata sheet has been made at the request of Dr. Nelte, Defense Counsel for the defendant Hoerlein, with respect to NI-6787, Exhibit 296. The errata sheets have been submitted to the Defense Center.
THE PRESIDENT:These corrections will be noted on the record.
Anything further from the Prosecution?
MR. SPRECKER:Nothing further, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT:Anything from the Defense at this time?
(No response)
Then the Prosecution may call the next witness.
MR. MINSKOFF:If it please the Court, the Prosecution at this time would like to go through Document Book No. 77.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well.
MR. MINSKOFF:And follow that up by the calling of witnesses.
The Prosecution offers at this time Document NI-838, as Prosecution's Exhibit 1497. It calls the Court's attention to page 1 of the English and 1 and 2 of the German, where it appears as a letter to Director Kuepper of I.G. Farben, from a Farben employee, Mr. Burth. It states, among other things--he writes, incidentally, from Auschwitz:
"You can imagine that the population is not going to behave in a friendly or even correct manner towards the Reich Germans, especially towards us I.G. people. The only thing that keeps these filthy people from becoming rebellious is the fact that armed power -- the concentration camp -- is in the background. The evil glances which are occasionally cast at us are not punishable. Apart from these facts, however, we are quite happy here."
Further on page 2 of the German and still on page 1 of the English:
"With a staff of such a size, you can well imagine that the number of accommodation barracks is constantly increasing and that a large city of shacks has developed. In addition to that, there is the circumstances that some thousand foreign workers see to it that our food supply does not deteriorate. Thus we find Italians, Frenchmen, Croats, Belgians, Poles, and, as the 'closet collaborators', the so-called criminal prisoners of all shades.
"That the Jewish race is playing a special part here you can well imagine. The diet and treatment of this sort of people is in accordance with our aim. Evidently, an increase in weight is hardly ever recorded for them. That bullets start whizzing at the slightest attempt of a change of air is also certain, as well as the fact that many have already disappeared as a result of 'sunstroke'."
On page 4 of the German and 2 of the English he states: "As regards the diet as such, I must say that every effort is being made to reconcile the many epicures among whom Reich Germans from every region are indeed to be found. The food is plentiful, but, on the other hand, every staff member, almost without exception, has developed such an excellent appetite that quite a few gaps must be filled somehow."
The next two documents, if it please the Court, are TEA meetings and are introduced in evidence as Prosecution's Exhibit 1498, that is NI-10943; and 1499, which is NI-10944.
On page 4 of the English and 15 of the German appears the attendance list to which the Court's special attention is called. That is in Exhibit 1498. And again, in 1499, the attendance list is on 11 of the English and 27 of the German.
The Prosecution wants to call attention also to the fact that with respect to 1498, there is a page in the English text which is missing, and which will he supplied to the Court just as soon as we possibly can. It is page 2 that is missing; the German text is complete.
The Prosectuion offers NI-11085 as Exhibit 1500, without comments.
The Prosecution now offers NI-11140 as its Exhibit 1401, which is the minutes of a construction conference at which Ambros, Duerrfeld, and Schneider were present. The Court's attention is drawn to page 19 of the English and 35 of the German, I am sorry, that should be 18 of the English, where, under the heading of "Allocation of Internees", Duerrfeld gives figures on the manpower employed:
"Thirty to forty percent are not working on the building site as they are still engaged in preparing Camp IV or else they are ill. By erecting further fences in the precincts of the factory it ought to be possible to reduce the number of sentries. The proportion of watchmen and employed internees must be fixed at a ratio of 1 to 40."
The Prosecution offers, as Exhibit 1502, NI-10945. Here again the Court's attention is paticularly called to the attendance list of the meeting and to Farben's interest in the problems of Auschwitz, the town of Auschwitz and the concentration camp Auschwitz. The Court's attention is also drawn again to this document where page 5 of the English is missing and will be supplied as soon as we can get it to you.
The Prosecution offers NI-11141 as its Exhibit 1503. It calls attention to page 30 of the English and 63 of the German where, under the heading "Manpower Situation". It is stated that:
"At present there are about 17,000 workers, of whom 10,500 are engaged in construction work, 1,200 in assembly work, and 2,300 are working in general plants. When using Frenchmen and Belgians, it was distrubingly noticeable that only a very small percentage returned from leave."
And on page 32 of the English and 67 of the German, under the heading "Employment of Prisoners", it is stated:
"It was arranged with Obergruppenfuehrer Schmitt, acting as Deputy for Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, that by 1 June the number will be raised to 5,000 and later on to 6,000." They are referring to the concentration camp inmates.
The Prosecution offers NI-10946 as its Exhibit 1504, and calls attention, again, to the attendance at the meeting which appears on page 41 of the English and 91 of the German. While it isn't relevant to the issues here because it only appears in the Index, some of the index figures are incorrect, and the ninety-five thousand Reichsmarks which appears in the Index--the ninety-five million should be ninetyfive thousand. The three million should be 3,017,000.
The Prosecution offers NI-11142 as its Exhibit 1505, and calls attention particularly to page 45 of the English and 97-98 of the German, where, under "Discussions on the Loss of Workers Failing to Return from Leave", it is stated:
"Duerrfeld sug ests that, in view of the compulsory recruitment in France, the workers be supplied with a clearance from the Armament Inspection which will protect them against removal to other German concerns."
NI-10947 is now offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 1506. Here again it is offered to show the attendance list in the discussion of Auschwitz appearing on page 52 of the English and 109 of the German.
The Prosecution offers now NI-5666 as its Exhibit 1507, and calls attention to page 55 of the English and 111 and 112 of the German.
This is a meeting of the Central Planning Board, attended by the defendants Krauch and Ambros. It is stated, on page 55:
"The extension of Auschwitz for 20,000 tons of Buna for which work is already under way requires that:
"1. Further withdrawal of labor from Auschwitz will be stopped and a transfer of workers from the construction sector to the erection sector can be made."
It states below that two hundred workers of the other plants have already been placed at the disposal of Auschwitz by compulsory transfer within the I.G.
Under point 3 it is stated, and I quote:
"The area of Auschwitz be pacified. This necessitates the providing of weapons, hand-grenades, machine-guns, and ammunition, for the purpose of arming the crew and the assignment of Landesschuetzen (regional defense), approximately 2,300 men. Action with regard to the regional defense assignment has already been taken. It is to be speeded up. Additional inmates from the Auschwitz concentration camp be furnished."
The Prosecution offers NI-109408 as its Exhibit 1508, which is again a TEA meeting, and attention is called only to the appropriation of funds and the attendence at the meeting.
The Prosecution offers NI-11143 as its Exhibit 1509, the minutes of a construction conference at which Mr. Ambros, Duerrfeld and Buetefisch were present. We call the Court's attention to page 66 of the English and 129 and 130 of the German. Under the heading "Labor Requirements" it is stated:
"On this occasion the employment of prisoners was also discussed. There are 6,500 prisoners in the camp, of whom 5,400 are actually employed."
Further down it is stated:
"An increase of staff is hampered by the difficulty of finding accomodation. It is to be expected that an additional 1,000 prisoners and 1,000 English prisoners of war will arrive."
The Prosecution offers NI-10949 as its Exhibit 1510, which is the minutes of a TEA meeting, and I just call the Court's attention to the attendance list and the appropriation for Auschwitz.
The Prosecution offers NI-11144, as its Exhibit 1411, and calls the Court's attention to page 80 of the English and page 154 of the German. Under the heading of "Employment of Prisoners" it is stated:
"It is endeavored to obtain 7,200 prisoners for employment. Prisoners are also being employed in the branch building sites at Guenthergrube and Janina."
As Prosecution Exhibit 1512, NI-10821 is offered in evidence. This is a letter from Defendant Ambros to the members of IG-Auschwitz Construction Conference, to Buetefisch and Duerrfeld. It merely suggests the termination of the construction conferences since they are going from construction into production.
NI 1905 is offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 1513, without comment.
NI 317 is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 1514. The Court's attention is called to page 90 of the English and 166 of the German. Here, Pohl describes to Himmler the Camp III site stating:
"Camp III includes all outside camps attached to industrial establishments in Upper Silesia which, however, are located at considerable distances from each other. At present, it consists of 14 outside camps with a total number of approximately 15,000 male inmates. These labor camps are also surrounded by the usual wire fence and have also watch towers. The largest of these labor camps is in Auschwitz, attached to the I. G. Farbenindustrie AG. It has, at present, 7,000 inmates."
The next document appearing in the index is NI 7572 and is already in evidence as Exhibit for the Proseuction 479. No comment with respect to it is to be made at this time.
The Proseuction offers NI 11145 asits Exhibit 1515, without comment.
The Prosecution will now call the witness.....
THE PRESIDENT:That completes Book 77?
MR. MINSKOFF:That completes Book 77, Your Honor.
If it please the Court, the next witness will be Mr. Spetter of Dutch nationality. The Prosecution offers, at this time, the affidavit of Mr. Spetter in evidence. It is NI 12383 and is offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 1516, to be added to Book 75.
THE PRESIDENT:We do not have it.
MR. MINSKOFF:I am just informed that it washanded in this morning and is probably in the offices - in your own offices.
THE PRESIDENT:Will you send the messenger and see so we can get it in our books?
In the meantime, you can go along, if you care to.
JUDGE MORRIS:May I have a description of the numbers of that exhibit again?
MR. MINSKOFF:I'm sorry, sir.
JUDGE MORRIS:May I have a description of the numbers of that exhibit again?
MR. MINSKOFF:That's 1516 and is NI 12383.
THE PRESIDENT:And in what book would it go, please?
MR. MIKSKOFF:That would be added to Book 75, Your Honors. The German was distributed to the defense last Saturday. It's just the English that was held up.
JUDGE MORRIS:I have it in the back of my book.
THE PRESIDENT:I think we all have it.
MR. MINSKOFF:Fine.
DR.SEIDL (Defense Counsel for defendant Duerrfeld):
Mr. President, last Friday the prosecution announced that four witnesses would be examined today. In the meantime, we have received copies of the affidavits of these four witnesses and have seen that these affidavits were prepared three or four days ago, here in Nurnberg. Under these circumstances, I make application that these affidavits not be accepted in evidence by the Tribunal, but, in view of the fact that the affidavits have been prepared only a few days ago, the Tribunal request that the direct examination of the witnesses be carried out in the court room. There is no reason that I can see why an affidavit should be offered in evidence here if the witness has been here for several days and there is the possibility to have him examined before the Tribunal. The principle has been held in all military tribunals, up to now, that the best evidence should be taken if there are various methods of evidence available. The best evidence is the direct examination of the witness himself, and I cannot see why in this case there should be a piece of paper between the wit ness and the Tribunal, since the witness is here himself.