State Attorney Bach: Can you possibly give the Court
details relating to the significance of those markings of
which we have heard – NO, NG and PS and so on, since these
markings appear in each of the documents which you
Witness Bar-Shalom: The documents were gathered, generally,
in various series and in various places. The series was
always marked by letters, and a document within the series
by a serial number. For example, if we say NG 123 this
means, the series of the Nazi Government No. 123, and we
added our mark according to the order in which the documents
were entered into their files. The most common markings in
our documents are PS which stands for Paris – Storey.
Q. What do these words mean?
A. They mean that the office was in Paris and that the
Director there was Storey. Hence the name PS but at a later
stage additional documents were added to that series, even
after the office had moved from Paris and Storey was no
longer the Director. The letter L. means London. The letters
NG mean Nazi Government and NO Nazi Organization. NOKW means
Nazi Oberkommando Wehrmacht, NI and NIG mean Nazi Industries
and EC Economic Case. These are the main symbols appearing
in our file.
Q. Those documents of this category which reached Bureau 06
– where did they come from?
A. The main place was the State Archives in Nuremberg. Its
name was the State Archives of Bavaria (Nuremberg Division).
Upon the conclusion of the trials various documents were
handed over by the Court, and later on both by the
prosecution and the defence, to the State Archives in
Nuremberg. I should like to point out first of all that the
“Official Record of the International Military Tribunal,”
and the “Official Records” – to the extent that they were
collected – “of the twelve Subsequent Trials” are now kept
at the Hague and in the National Archives of the United
States located in Alexandria, near Washington.
Q. You said “to the extent that they were collected.” Are
the records not there in full?
A. The records there are fairly full. These documents were
submitted to the Court in two ways; one way was by means of
photocopies of the original documents; and the other way was
by means of stencilled copies arranged in the volumes of
documents of the prosecution and of the defence. Furthermore
the Court issued a daily record and published it in stencil.
The Court there regarded these stencils also as official
documents, as also emerges from volume 15 of the Green
Q. In stating this, are you also relying on any declaration
which was received by Bureau 06?
A. There is a declaration in Bureau 06 of Dr. Kempner, who
was the Deputy Chief Counsel of the United States in these
trials. He visited Bureau 06, examined the volumes of
documents and records that had reached us, and found that
they were the same official records that were issued by the
Court in these twelve trials in Nuremberg. He likewise
confirmed that these were the photostats and the documents
that had been transferred to the State Archives in Nuremberg
by the Court authorities.
State Attorney Bach: With the Court’s permission I should
like to submit as evidence the affidavit of Dr. Kempner on
this point. I have the original and the Hebrew translation
as well as two copies.
Presiding Judge: This document will be T/12.
State Attorney Bach: I quote from the document “I served in
the role of Prosecutor…and subsequently as Assistant
Presiding Judge: Is it necessary for you to read the entire
document? Perhaps we can glance at the document – since this
would be quicker?
State Attorney Bach: As the Court pleases. Actually we have
here a corroboration of the facts to which the witness has
already testified. [To Bar-Shalom] The affidavit of Dr.
Kempner refers to the same stencil which, as you said, he
had confirmed were original documents and which served as
such documents for the prosecution in Nuremberg. Did you
also receive an affidavit in connection with those copies
and photostats relating to documents which were kept at the
State Archives in Nuremberg?
Witness Bar-Shalom: Mr. Gershon Shapira was sent by Yad
Vashem to the State Archives in Nuremberg in order to gather
material, and he took photographs there of all the copies
and the photostats which had been submitted to Court and had
been delivered subsequently to the State Archives in
Nuremberg. This is as far as the photostatic copies are
concerned. Similarly he obtained from the State Archives in
Nuremberg those stencils which we showed to Dr. Kempner, and
he brought them to Yad Vashem, and we received them from Yad
Q. Did Mr. Shapira also make a statement on this second fact
in the affidavit which you saw?
A. Yes, he made a statement on both matters in the
Q. Did he also annex to this affidavit a list of all those
files and documents he himself photographed?
A. He annexed an original list which he had made at the time
in Nuremberg, and he also attached a specimen of a
specification list; that is to say a kind of detailed list
of the photographs of films.
State Attorney Bach: With the Court’s permission I should
like to submit this affidavit in evidence at this trial. I
should like to add this affidavit bearing our catalogue
number – 1521. I should add – I omitted to mention this
before – that Dr. Kempner’s affidavit bears the catalogue
Presiding Judge: There is one matter here which you have not
spoken of – the “register card.”
Witness Bar-Shalom: This is the list – at the beginning and
the end of each microfilm there is a “register card”
indicating which documents are included, signed by the
person who made the photographs.
State Attorney Bach: In order to close the circle of proofs
relating to this category of documents, I should like to
submit one more affidavit of Dr. Kermish, to the effect that
he had received these films from Mr. Shapiro and delivered
them to Bureau 06. This is the affidavit bearing the
catalogue number 1576. I regret that this method of proof
appears to be somewhat complicated, but we could not find
any other way of proving these matters beyond all doubt.
Presiding Judge: Sir, please don’t apologize. But there is
something here. What is the number – 1575 or 1576?
State Attorney Bach: The number is 1576. Possibly there is
an error at the top. At all events, the correct number which
I am referring to is 1576.
Presiding Judge: There are, here, two different affidavits.
Evidently there is some confusion here.
State Attorney Bach: Will your Honour allow me to check.
The intended reference is to document 1576. By error another
number was entered on one of the copies.
Presiding Judge: But now I don’t have the original. I hope
that we shall get used to this in course of time.
State Attorney Bach: I now notice that the original, in
fact, bears the number 1575, although the contents are
identical. In one place is written 1575 and in another place
Presiding Judge: I don’t think the contents are identical.
Please check this once more.
State Attorney Bach: This relates to the material which
reached Yad Vashem.
Presiding Judge: Is that the same text of the affidavit?
According to the length I can see that it is not the same
State Attorney Bach: The two affidavits in my possession
have the identical text. But we shall check this once again.
I see that it is the same text which apparently on one
occasion has been marked with another number.
Presiding Judge: In that case the number is 1576.
State Attorney Bach: Mr. Bar-Shalom – do you have before
you inclusive lists of those documents which were entered in
our catalogue and the verification of which is based on the
evidence we have just submitted?
Witness Bar-Shalom: I have two lists. The one is the list of
those documents which were enlarged from microfilm in which
there is, again, a serial number, a catalogue number, the
number of the prosecution in Nuremberg and the number of the
film, according to the markings of Yad Vashem, and again the
identifying mark of each picture which was examined, of each
enlargement that was examined. And I marked it with the
number of the film on the back of the document in the same
Presiding Judge: Was all this from Nuremberg?
Witness Bar-Shalom: All this was from Nuremberg. The second
list of documents consists of those actually taken from the
Defence Document Book or the Prosecution Document Book or
the record of the Court in stencil as confirmed by Dr.
Kempner and which are kept in our archives here, upstairs.
State Attorney Bach: I ask the Court to accept these two
lists in evidence.
Presiding Judge: [To witness] Was this prepared by you?
Witness Bar-Shalom: Yes, sir.
Presiding Judge: The two lists will be marked T/15 and T/16.
State Attorney Bach: Did you also order and did you receive
a number of documents from the National Archives of the
United States in Alexandria near Washington?
Witness Bar-Shalom: We both ordered and received from the
National Archives a number of documents, and these were
mainly documents relating to the prosecution such as NG, PS
and so forth, which we obtained in several consignments
bound in volumes and certified by the head of the Archives.
And we also received a copy for work purposes. We keep the
bound volumes in a locked cupboard, and have placed in the
file the copies for work purposes which I had compared and
marked in the same corner with the signs A/1, A/2, A/3 –
according to the consignment. We did so since they sent us
many volumes and documents bound together, and for purposes
of the examination, for the sake of convenience, we were
obliged to separate them. We did not use all the bound
documents we received in each consignment, nor each of the
documents in its entirety, but only such documents as we
found to be appropriate. The list is attached.
State Attorney Bach: I ask you to accept this list also as
Presiding Judge: This is the list of documents from the
National Archives of the United States and it is marked
State Attorney Bach: Mr. Bar-Shalom, I understand this
latest list consists of documents which were also exhibited
in the twelve trials at Nuremberg. Did you, in addition to
this, also receive from the same source, from the National
Archives of the United States, further documents?
Witness Bar-Shalom: We also received from them documents
photographed on four microfilms, with the addition of a
statement that the microfilms were prepared specially for
us. From these microfilms we extracted a number of
documents, in the way I have previously described, and I
marked them in the way I have previously described by the
symbol Alex 1, Alex 2, Alex 3 in the lower right-hand
corner of the enlargements.
Presiding Judge: Does Alex stand for Alexandria?
Witness Bar-Shalom: Yes. And this is the list.
State Attorney Bach: Before this I should like to submit to
the Court the affidavit of Mr. Wayne C. Grover, Archivist of
the United States Archives who certifies here the details
about which Mr. Bar-Shalom has testified. The document bears
our catalogue number 1581.
Presiding Judge: This is marked T/18.
[To the witness] You made a list from this, and this is the
Witness Bar-Shalom: Yes.
State Attorney Bach: I would ask to submit this list also
as an exhibit.
Presiding Judge: The list will be marked T/19.
State Attorney Bach: Mr. Bar-Shalom – what is the next
Witness Bar-Shalom: The next category contains documents
which we received from various countries and every
individual document is certified on the back by the
appropriate institution of that country. Consequently there
is no need for additional certification. This is the list of
State Attorney Bach: These are lists of documents received
from Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Italy, Poland and Yugoslavia
and which were included in the material of the Prosecution’s
evidence, according to the catalogue number appearing on
each individual document. I submit this list, also as an
exhibit in this trial.
Presiding Judge: The list will be marked T/20, consisting of
State Attorney Bach: Mr. Bar-Shalom – do you have a list of
those documents which you received from the Berlin
Witness Bar-Shalom: In the Berlin Documentation Center there
are the personal files of the SS personnel.
Presiding Judge: Who manages this Center?
Witness Bar-Shalom: The United States authorities. We
received from the United States authorities a photocopy of
the Accused’s personal file. Every photocopy is certified on
the back by the Archives. This list is before me. Part of
the personal file we did not receive from them, but from Yad
Vashem and the source from which these photocopies came is
not known to us. These are marked on this list – where there
is no certification from the Berlin Documentation Center –
those documents which we received from Yad Vashem.
Q. How did this file reach this Center?
A. Many of the prosecution and defence documents of the
Nuremberg Trials were also there. And the personal file of
the Accused also bore a Nuremberg prosecution number – an NO
State Attorney Bach: I ask the Court to accept this list,
also, as evidence.
Presiding Judge: The list is marked T/21.
State Attorney Bach: At this stage I ask the Court to
receive in evidence an additional affidavit of Dr. Joseph
Kermish, the head of the Yad Vashem Archives, which includes
a list of the original documents delivered to Bureau 06 by
the Directorate of Yad Vashem. This list bears the catalogue
Presiding Judge: The list will be marked T/22.
State Attorney Bach: I also ask the Court to accept the
affidavit of Mrs. Miriam Nowitz of Kibbutz Lohamei Ha-
Getta’ot who also handed over to Bureau 06 certain documents
and films which were in the possession of Kibbutz Lohamei Ha-
Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/23.
State Attorney Bach: Mr. Bar-Shalom, could you perhaps give
the Court details about the documents received by Bureau 06
from the Centre de Documentation Juive Contemporaine.
Witness Bar-Shalom: The Institution which we call for short
Centre sent us original documents and we also used
microfilms which were made at the Centre itself for Yad
Vashem by Dr. Alsberg. The original documents which reached
us accompanied by affidavits of Mr. Billig and Mr. Poliakov
of the Centre are those which were received from the French
authorities immediately after the World War. The French
authorities, at the time, seized the entire archives of the
Gestapo in Paris and gave Mr. Poliakov special permission
for access to its Jewish section. From there the Centre
received some of the documents, in their original form, as a
gift, and some of the documents were photographed by the
Centre on microfilm or in photostats kept in the Centre.
Presiding Judge: What was this Institution? Who ran it?
Witness Bar-Shalom: It is currently managed by Mr. Mazar.
Presiding Judge: On whose behalf?
Witness Bar-Shalom: This is a Jewish institution under
State Attorney Bach: Your Honours,I should like to submit
the affidavits of Messrs. Billig and Poliakov – these were
made in the French language and we have attached a Hebrew
Presiding Judge: [After receiving the documents] Is all this
State Attorney Bach: Yes.
Presiding Judge: You spoke of two.
State Attorney Bach: This document contains the two
affidavits of Mr. Billig and of Mr. Poliakov. And the entire
document bears the number 1504.
Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/24.
State Attorney Bach: To complete this picture, I should
like to submit two additional affidavits – the one of Dr.
Avraham Alsberg who in Paris prepared certain microfilms
from those documents to which Mr. Poliakov attests, and the
second, an affidavit of Dr. Kermish who transferred these
films to Bureau 06. The affidavit of Dr. Alsberg bears the
Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/25.
State Attorney Bach: And the affidavit of Dr. Joseph
Kermish which relates to these documents bears the number
1575. This is the solution of our earlier mystery. Some of
the previous documents were wrongly marked.
Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/26.
State Attorney Bach: Mr. Bar-Shalom – in order to conclude
this chapter perhaps you could give the Court a list of
those documents which were received from the Centre
according to the Prosecution’s catalogue numbers.
Witness Bar-Shalom: There are two lists: one of the original
documents and one of the photocopies, marked as was
Presiding Judge: Does this include everything that came from
Witness Bar-Shalom: Which originated in the 05Centre.
Presiding Judge: Does it contain five pages?
Witness Bar-Shalom: These are the lists of the microfilms.
Presiding Judge: Are these two different things?
Witness Bar-Shalom: These are two different things. The
first is a list of the original documents we received.
State Attorney Bach: Your Honour, in the affidavit of Mr.
Poliakov, there is reference both to the original documents
transferred by him to the Israel authorities and also to the
microfilms which contained photocopies of the same
documents. Accordingly Mr. Bar-Shalom is now submitting two
separate lists, a list of original documents and a list of
documents which are made up of photocopies.
Presiding Judge: The list of original documents is marked
T/27. The list of the photographed documents (the microfilm)
is marked T/28.