MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honor will permit the prosecution at this time to ask that question directly so that we may possibly avoid a long examination.
THE PRESIDENT: It's rather unusual but we will permit that question to be propounded in view of the confusion that seems to have arisen.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Senate President Hecker, did the program for the transfer of prison inmates from Reich prisons to concentration camps begin officially or did it not begin officially after the assumption to office of minister Thierack?
THE WITNESS: It began only after Minister Thierack took over the office.
THE PRESIDENT: Under the circumstances, there will be no cross examination concerning Schlegelberger's interim period.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Then I would like to ask one more question. Witness, you stated before that the efforts on the part of the RSHA at the time of Guertner-- that they made constant efforts to effect the transfer of the groups into concentration camps. Did these efforts of the RSHA take place also during the time of Schlegelberger, 1941 until August 1942, even in a stronger form?
THE WITNESS: From my own knowledge, I cannot testify as to this; however, I assume that during this time too, the attempts were continued and that probably they were increased during the time where there was no actual minister.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I would like to move to have that answer stricken, because the witness states that he does not know, and only states an assumption after stating he knows no facts.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take the answer for what it is Worth. Does other counsel desire to cross examine?
DR. KOESLL: Dr. Koosll as deputy for the defense counsel Dr. Marx for the defendant Engert. I ask the High Tribunal to grant permission that the defense counsel of the defendant Engert should enter into tho cross examination only after ho has been given the opportunity to discuss these statements of the witness with his defendant who is absent.
THE PRESIDENT: May we inquire at this time, Dr. Koessl, the condition of the health of Dr. Engert?
DR. KOESLL: according to the information I have, Dr. Engert is not yet able to appear in the session; however, I don't know any more details.
THE PRESIDENT: At any rate, Dr. Engert has been excused and has not been present during this examination. The same rule would certainly apply to him which has been applied to Dr. Rothaug, and it will seen therefore that counsel is under that rule and within his rights.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: We'd like to point cut to the Tribunal, if we nay, that we have have no quarrel, of course, with the rule. That is perfectly acceptable. But it may have to be modified in the future in view of an unsubstantiated report that tho prosecution got yesterday to tho effect that the two defendants may be removed to a hospital in Garmisch tomorrow. That being so, the delays necessitated to confer with counsel will be very great.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems as though the time has come to have a further careful medical examination of both of these defendants and brought before this Tribunal so we will be better able to judge these matters. We excused them on the ground of illness. Will it be possible to continue this examination in tho absence of the opportunity to interview Dr. Engert?
DR. KOESSL: bay it please the Tribunal, it is unfortunately not possible to continue the cross examination now since I am not concerned with the case Engert. I did not deal with it-- and of course I assumed that it was obvious that the rule which had been made for defendants who arc not present would apply also to the defendant Engert.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Koessl, the reason you now give-- I will not call it an excuse--but tho reason you now give is not as good as that which was offered on behalf of Rothaug.
The trouble with you is that you do not represent the defendant Engert. He has counsel assigned to him and approved by this Tribunal. He should be here looking after his client's interests. You don't have any better rights than Dr. Marx would have if he were here. I think we will require that the examination go ahead to some extent to f ill in the time.
DR. KOESSL: The defense counsel for the defendant Engert is just at the moment with the defendant Engert in order to discuss the matter since tho announcement that the witness would be introduced was only given us late last night.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, that notice was filed two-and-one-half days ago.
THE PRESIDENT: How long have defense counsel had access to this affidavit which was introduced this morning?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Ever since the document books were distributed and sometime before that, which has been a matter of weeks.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a great deal of matter in that affidavit concerning which the cross examination could proceed without any difficulty. These trials must be expeditious. We can't have deals on unsubstantial grounds.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Hay I make a statement with respect to this? Yesterday during the course of the afternoon, through a notice on the blackboard, we were informed that beginning today the witness Hecker will be called. In the hospital, the defense counsel has tho possibility to discuss matters with his clients only until six O'clock in the evening Therefore, I believe that the defense counsel had no opportunity yesterday after he gained knowledge about the notice that Hecker will be examined to discuss the matter with his client.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honor please, I think this confusion arises out of the difference between the technical compliance with the rule and the courtesies which the prosecution has attempted to confer. We have served notice long before--at least 24 hours before-- the 24 hour period required that we would examine this witness.
Because of the nature of the examination of witnesses and the unpredictable period of cross Examination, we did not know at just what time we could pet this witness on.
But I think that all defense counsel are bound to take notice of the written notice and to be in here. We will attempt to accommodate them, but I see no excuse for Dr. Marx' not having taken notice of the official motive given to him that this witness would be examined. I am not concerned as to when it gets on the blackboard; I am concerned about when we sent it to the Defense Center.
DR. SCHILF: DR. Schilf for the defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg. May it please the court , the notice on the blackboard was in the Defense Counsel Center, only yesterday after the court had adjourned in the afternoon. I myself only was informed at a quarter to five after the session was over. It is impossible that any one of us, who was present during the session could have been informed about that. It follows therefore, that the 24-hour rule was not maintained in this case. It is possible that the gentlemen of the prosecution made the announcement that the witness will be examined today-- that they gave the announcement to the Chief of the Defense Information Center. Unfortunately, however the Defense Information Center moved during the course of these days and for this technical reason it may be explained that the defense counsel as such received the notice only last night after the session or could find out about it only after the session last night.
THE RESIDENT: We think we are ready to rule on this entire matter.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I would like to say one more thing to clear up the position of the Prosecution. I realize that the Defense Information Center was moved, but I am positive that it was yesterday afternoon, or before noon, or the evening before, that a young man whose name I have forgotten, a member of the Defense Counsel, who stated to me that he was Assistant to Dr. Marx, asked me when this witness would be on the stand. As I recall, I told him then that it would be on Friday. Now, that was more than last evening, I know. Now, I do not insist upon the immediate cross examination, but I want to make it clear that we have attempted to comply with the rule and that if we can't anticipate when these people are going on, it is not our fault; I think Defense Counsel should be instructed.
THE PRESIDENT: We arc now ready to rule. We are now within five minutes of the time we intended to adjourn for our usual noon recess; and we Trill, therefore, instruct the Marshal of this Court to communicate immediately with Dr. Marx and have him here at two o'clock for this cross examination.
DR. KOESSL: May it please the Tribunal, the Deputy of Dr. Marx was already called up by me on the phone during the recess, during the morning recess. I could not reach him personally at that moment and, therefore, I told his secretary to inform him immediately. I therefore assume that immediately after the noon recess he will be present.
THE PRESIDENT: We will, therefore, recess at this time until two o'clock this afternoon.
A recess was taken until 1400 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
THE MARSHAL: All persons in the Court will find seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Are the Defense Counsel ready to proceed with the cross examination?
DR. LINK (for the defendant Engert): Hay I be permitted to first of all give a short personal explanation to clear up and to provide an excuse. My colleague, Dr. Marx, with the approval of the Secretary General, has gone, in professional matters, to an internment camp near Hamburg. I am representing him. I have been deputized for him. Two days ago I inquired from the Prosecutor whether within the near future it was to be expected that witnesses against the defendant Engert would be examined and I heard that possibly on Friday, or next week, the witness Hecker might be examined. Since yesterday, after the afternoon session, which I attended, no announcement had been made as yet. I believed that I could use this morning to visit the defendant Engert at the hospital and to discuss matters with him. I would ask you to excuse me, if thereby I caused a disturbance this morning, I would ask the Tribunal to confirm to me whether for the defendant Engert, who for an unknown period of time, will not be able to attend his trial, whether he will be allowed, concerning witnesses for the Prosecution, whether it will be permitted that cross examination which may be necessary, can be postponed until such time as the defendant has time to hear about the statements, through me. I am in a position to carry out the cross examination of Hecker, but I would ask for a decision, which in the case of future witnesses, my suggestion will and might be adopted.
THE PRESIDENT: Maybe we should inquire whether it is likely that any other witness will be called who will apply particularly to the defendant Engert?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: There will be one further witness called of particular relevance to the defendant Engert, and possibly two -- at least one.
THE PRESIDENT: You do not mean today?
HR. WOOLEYHAN: Not today, they are not as yet physically available in Nurnberg.
THE PRESIDENT: You are advised as other witnesses are called whose testimony will pertain more particularly to the defendant Engert, you will be given an opportunity to confer with your client before being required to cross examine, but we, of course, desire that the period will be as limited between the direct examination and the cross examination as possible.
Now, we heard it stated this morning Engert might, at least there might be a removal of the defendant Engert to some other hospital outside of Nurnberg. We want to say now that there must be no removal of the defendant Engert from Nurnberg without the matter having been previously approved by this Tribunal.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, it should not be overlooked that the possibility of removal also applies to the defendant Rothaug, and we should not like to have them removed to inaccessible places without the Tribunal's permission.
THE PRESIDENT: What I have said, of course, applies to the defendant Rothaug.
Dr. Link, you are willing now to proceed with the examination, and you feel that it is no hardship on you to do so?
DR. LINK: Yes.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. LINK:
Q Witness, if I am correctly informed, you were in division five of the Reich ministry of Justice, in a position, and not in division fifteen? Division five, according to your testimony today, among other things, the general transfer of Poles, Jews, and Gypsies to the RSHA was dealt with; is that correct? Here the transfers of the so-called asocial elements depending upon an individual examination of each Case which was dealt with by division 15; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q This morning the question was asked as to whether the method of work at division 15, concerning such transfers which could, you described that in brief, and in your reply dealt with lists which referred to Jews, Gypsies and Poles -
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If it pleases the Court, if I remember correctly, and I am sure the record will bear me out, the answer which counsel just described was given by the Witness with regard to division five and not with regard to division fifteen; is that correct Witness?
THE PRESIDENT: Let the Witness answer now.
(No reply from the Witness.)
DR. LINK: I only meant to clear up a possible misunderstanding.
Q It is a fact, therefore, that as concerns the working methods at division fifteen, as far as examination of these asocial elements are concerned, you cannot give any testimony?
A No.
Q Hay I remind you of your affidavit, of which you are familiar, in particular, of the passages on page four of the German text, where it says in the middle of the page: "With him, that is Engert, repeatedly discussed the transfer cf those groups, that is to say the groups who were examined individually, and I was given the instructions from him that that scheme was to be continued." If I am correctly informed, you said on direct examination that under Engert you were concerned with the continuation of a check which resulted from an instruction by the Minister of Justice, Thierack. Did Engert have any scope and why were instructions required as to the stopping of all continuation of that scheme?
A Instructions, when he took over the division, he had to decide whether the work of the division was to be continued in the same manner as before. The activity concerning the transfer, the fact that the transfers was decided, while the general ruling does not affect the fact that when you assume a new division, you have to decide whether you wish to continue the work in the same manner as before or not.
Q I understand. Is it correct that the technical continuation -that you were referring to technical continuation of office matters, and that you were not considering fundamental changes possible?
A The fundamental changes would only have been possible if Engert, for his part, would have gone to sec the Minister and had made opposition toward the continuation of carrying out the decree; that was a possibility.
Q Would you consider that that possibility could be in theory or in practice?
A I do not believe that the Minister which had changed his decisions could only have said that under those circumstances, I cannot take over the position.
Q Yes. At the end of the direct examination, questions on that subject were put to you asking you as to whether you could observe that Engert, as a successor of your predecessor Marx, had done anything to delay the program. You said, no, in your answer?
A Yes.
Q Regarding the technical execution of these transfers -- of the general transfers, was anything changed under Engert, compared with Marx?
A No, conditions remained the same. The lists were still submitted and were passed on.
Q One thing more. Is it correct or not that those general transfers were also in effect interpreted, as far as your competence is concerned; that it was ascertained whether the person concerned was a Pole, Jew or Gypsy, nothing else?
A No, and in the case of Poles, there was something else. It was established whether he had been sentenced to imprisonment in excess of three years.
Q That was assumption, the existence of which could be established quite easily through routine channels?
A Yes.
Q Did you--with Engert or with his predecessor Marx--have any fundamental discussions with either of them on that point?
A Fundamental discussions took place, for example, on the point as to whether prisoners who were sick were to be transferred, in what case prisoners could be kept back, etc. But concerning the handing on of the lists, as such, discussions were generally not needed. The fundamental questions, as such, had been settled.
Q That is enough for me, thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further cross-examination on the part of any other of Defense counsel? Has the Prosecution any re-direct examination?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: We have not, Your Honor. The witness may be excused.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness nay be excused.
(Witness excused)
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If the Tribunal and the Defense counsel will please turn to Book VII-A, we will proceed with the introduction of evidence in just a moment.
MR. KING: The document book from which we will next proceed is VII-A; the next exhibit number will be 278, and will apply to the document NG-771, which is the first document in the document book VII-A. This document is an excerpt of a decree of the Reichminister of Justice, of 6 February 1935, concerning procedure in matters cf clemency, and it was promulgated in the Deutsche Justiz, 1945. Page 203 in it describes the manner in which clemency pleas shall be presented. We formally offer the document NG-771 as Exhibit 278.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: The next exhibit, Exhibit 279, will be the document NG302, which will be found beginning on page 4 of the document book VII-A.
This is a letter to Thierack, dated 17th of August 1943, from Dr. Lammers, which, in general, asks that the executions of individual sentences to death be more speedily carried out. At that time there were more than 900 persons who were condemned to death and there was a fear that during air raids this large number of condemned persons would constitute a danger in view of increasing air raids. It is a request for a quick decision on applications for clemency. We offer the document NG-302 as Exhibit 279.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: As Exhibit 280, we will next offer the document NG-609, which appears beginning on page 12 of the document book VII-A, and continues through page 66 of the same book, This document consists of semi-monthly reports of death sentences approved by various departments and individuals. These reports date from September 10, 1942 to September 2, 1943. We particularly call attention to the fact that the death sentences from persons formerly resident in the so-called Eastern territories appear here apparently upon the recommendation of the defendant Joel. Throughout this document, the list of death sentences resulting from the Nacht and Nabel program--these, apparently, upon the recommendation of the defendant von Ammon.
We will not go to any further extent to point out the contents of the document, but what I have said indicates that we will, in the future refer to it in connection at least with the references I have made. We will offer, as soon as Defense counsel has finished examining the document, the document NG-698, as Exhibit 280.
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask to what courts this document refers? For instance, it does not refer to the military trials, does it?
MR. KING: It is not clear on the face of the document that it does not refer to the military courts. However, if any military cases are involved in this document, it would be incumbent upon the Defense to show how they came under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next exhibit, 218, will be Document NG-301 which begins on Page 67 of Document Book 7-A. This document, in general, involves the same question involved in Document 302 which was introduced a few moments ago as Exhibit 279. The first letter in this document is a letter from Meissner to Thierack dated September 3, 1943. It refers once again to the question of the acceleration of executions of death sentences for the same reasons mentioned in Exhibit 279. The danger of air raids and the large number of people under sentence of death constituted a potential danger that some of the prisoners under sentence might escape during an air raid. This was a plea by Meissner to Thierack to try to do something about speeding up the executions. The document also contains a note by Thierack, passing on to the People's Court and Chief Public Prosecutor this thought and requesting that all possible measures be taken to accelerate action on clemency pleas and so on. The note from Theirack is also initialed by the Defendant Klemm. We offer as Exhibit 281, the Document NG-201.
THE PRESIDENT: Will counsel give us some information as to who Meisnner really was? What was his official position?
MR. KING: Meissner, to the best of my recollection, was a State Secretary who held a job equivalent to that of Dr. Lammers. If I am incorrect in that, I am sure defense counsel will correct me. I think it is important for the Court to realize that this request was from some one outside the Justice Ministry who as an official in the Reich government was passing on requests made to him by other officers in the government.
It has been pointed out to me that the next Document, NG-319; contains his title in full which is State Minister and Chief of the Presidential Chancellery. May I ask whether this document has been admitted in evidence?
THE PRESIDENT: It will be admitted in evidence.
DR. SCHILF: (For the Defendant Klemm.) According to the document book which we have before us, Page 88 in the German Book and Page 89, we are confronted with an incorrect pagination.
As far as I can see, the top of Page 89 contains a handwritten note which has not been copied. The date is missing insofar as the year has been omitted. At the moment I cannot see whether that note is a part of Meissner's letter of 3 September 1943, or whether it is a separate document. Therefore, I would ask the Tribunal to allow me to examine once again the exhibit which has just been submitted so that I can make certain. Furthermore, in case the question cannot be cleared up, I would ask you to permit me to give my view on the subject again.
MR. KING: May I see if the English copy is correct? It will appear that the note to which Dr. Schilf has referred is not a pa.rt of the Meissner letter. However, in case there may be some doubt about the manner in which the English copy has been reproduced, I agree that Dr. Schilf should be permitted to once again examine the original which has been submitted as an exhibit, and I join in his request that it be returned to him for examination.
JUDGE BRAND: You referred, Mr. Prosecutor, to Klemm in connection with the note, as I understood it.
MR. KING: No. As I understand it, Dr. Schilf's objection does not go to that part of the letter.
JUDGE BRAND: I am just asking you whether you connect the note with Defendant Klemm in anyway? The note does not appear to be a part of the letter sent by Dr. Theirack and initialed by the Defendant Klemm.
MR. KING: The part initialed by Klemm appears to be a separate note.
Dr. SCHILF: May it please the Court: May I make a remark on this matter? I have the photostat before me, but unfortunately, at the moment, it is impossible to settle the matter. Meissner's letter is dated 3 September 1943. Following that letter, on the next page, are three notes. They are numbered one, two and three. At the end of Number Three, there is a date, "Berlin, 4 October 1944." That means a year later. From the photostat we have before us, we cannot see the connection between 1943 and 1944.
Therefore, I take the liberty to suggest that before the Prosecutor submits the document in evidence, I be permitted to make a further attempt to settle the matter with the Prosecutor so we can establish why those notes differ. We will find out whether they refer to the Meissner letter of 3 September 1943 or to the note of 4 October 1944. This matter is of importance to the Defendant Klemm because in 1943 he was not yet Undersecretary.
MR. KING: I am in accord with what Dr. Schilf said, concerning the note about which there has been discussion, to a certain extent. However, this does not effect the principle question. The fact remains that the letter, sent by Theirack to the President of the Peoples Court or the Chief Public Prosecutor at the People's Court, incorporates the same general thoughts contained in Meissner's letter to Dr. Thierack. There is no question, I take, about the fact that Defendant Klemm initialed the letter from Dr. Thierack to the People's Court and the Chief Public Prosecutor.
What the origin of that note may be, at the moment, I am not prepared to say. And if it is the feeling of the Tribunal that this document should be held out until we can definitely explain it correctly, we will agree to withdraw it and submit it again at such time when we are able to explain it.
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem that this document, being a captured document, is of such a nature, that it is admissible. Of course Dr. Schilf can explain it as a matter of defense or under these peculiar circumstances, he can bring this matter up at any time.
MR. KING: The next Exhibit, 282, concerns the Document NG-319which is to be found in the English Book 7-1 beginning on Page 73 and in the German Book beginning on Page 91. This document consists of two letters relating to the same general subject as NG-301 which was Exhibit 281 and NG-302 which was Exhibit 279.
In Thierack's letter to Dr. Meissner, he suggests in the period from September 3, 1939, until the date of this letter, November 11, 1934, that his recommendation for clemency to Hitler bad been followed except in one case. He suggests from that fact, it follows that there is little point in submitting these lists to Hitler because obviously he and Hitler see eye to eye on these applications or petitions for clemency. He therefore would decide the question in tho future without reference to Hitler.
The next letter is a reply from Dr. Lammers. ho is agreeing essentially with Theirack's proposal with tho exception that Hitler still would like to have tho clemency pleas relating to women under death sentence who formerly lived in the occupied western territories. No offer as Exhibit 282, Document NG-319.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: The next exhibit, 283 , which is Document NG-535 is a sworn affidavit from a Berlin lawyer, Dr. Bruno Gruenwald who, for a considerable period of time was a defense lawyer before tho People's Court in Berlin. We will not, at this time, read any portion of the document. We will call attention to the fact that he speaks on many aspects of the procedure before the People's Court from his point of view as a defense counsel. We, therefore, offer at this time, the affidavit of Gruenwald as Exhibit 283. It is Document NG-535.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: The next exhibit, 284, is the document NG-190. It appears in the English Document Book 7-A at Page 85, and in the German Document look on Page 106.
This document is a series of letters in connection with the execution of individuals who were sentenced to prison terms and who later were executed for the most part on Hitler's order without an official order of execution issuing from the Ministry of Justice. There is also to be found from the English text, beginning on Page 92, which would be Page 115 in the German text, a list of 18 cases in this particular category, of individuals who were sentenced to prison terms and who later were executed without official orders from tho Reich ministry of Justice. As soon as Defense counsel have completed the examination of tho document we offer NG-190 as Exhibit 284.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: The next exhibit, 283, is Document 674-PS. It is to be found in the English text on Page 99 of Document Book 7-A and in the German text on Page 118.
This is a letter from the President of the District Court and the Chief Public Prosecutor in the Kattowitz District of Poland to the Reich Minister of Justice concerning the execution in the Kattowitz District of individuals who were sentenced to prison terms but executed without orders.
We have no further comments to make on the document and we offer Document 674-PS as Exhibit 285.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
JUDGE BRAND: Mr. Prosecutor, tho presiding judge has observed that it is time for the recess and permitted me to make a purely personal suggestion to counsel for both sides. I think this will be very helpful to the Court. This, of course, is not a request from the Tribunal.
It is my suggestion only.
MR. KING: Yes.
JUDGE BRAND: We have the affidavits and other evidence showing pretty accurately the official positions of tho defendants in the case, but it would be a very great convenience I think to the Tribunal if tho Prosecution and some of the defense counsel could make out a brief list of the higher officials with a brief statement indicating offices which they held and the period of time during which they held then. I call attention merely by way of illustration to some of the names which have appeared quite recently in the exhibits ---Meissner, Theirack, Guertner, Freisler, Lammers and no doubt others. If that could be done, it would aid the Tribunal. I am quite sure they would appreciate knowing in what capacity these different men acted.
If counsel for both sides approve that suggestion, I think it would be a very helpful thing.
MR. KING: Four honor, I think tho Prosecution are in agreement as to the helpfulness of such a document. We will perhaps outside of Court --
JUDGE BRAND: There is not has to about it.
MR. KING: Ac will prepare such a document and get together with defense counsel so you will have assurance that it is accurate, and then we will submit it to the Court at our first opportunity.
THE PRESIDENT: We will now recess for 15 minutes.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A short recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. SCHILF: (Attorney for Defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg) In regard to Exhibit 282, NG-319, there is some lack of clarity; there is a lack of clearness.
It is possible that this was only a mistake in the translation. Mr. King referred to the letter of 11 November 1942; ho explained it only and did not read it. In the German translation the contents - may I tell you that this is in the German document book, page 91, Document Book VII-A, page 91 in the German book; that is page 73 in the English text. This explanation, according to what we heard over the German sound system, was to the effect that contrary to the suggestion of the Reich Minister of Justice, of 290 death cases in which the death sentences were pronounced, only one or two were pardoned. The text, however, states the opposite; namely, that out of 290 pardons, the death sentences, where the death sentences were carried out, two of them were ordered by Hitler; as Head of State Hitler ordered two of them to be executed in his capacity as Head of State. I would only like to have it clarified whether there is a mistake in the German transcript; I would like to find out whether the same applies, whether the same mistake occurs also in the English transcript; or whether it is only a mistake in the translation.
MR. KING: It seems to be that in any event the document will speak for itself. I assume that Dr. Schilf is addressing his remarks to the translation of the German over the sound system while I was summarizing that document, rather than to the translation as it appears in the document book. At the moment, of course, I can not accurately remember verbatim what I said in summar izing this document.
In case it was not clear, may I repeat that in summarizing this document I wanted to point out that Thierack in writing to Dr. Meissner referred to the fact that in only two cases did Hitler disagree with him as to the disposition of the recommendations which ho, Thierack, had made; and since it was apparent from that, in Thierack's mind, that ho and Hitler saw eye to eye as to the disposition, that there was really no point in the future in referring these cases to Hitler. Now, if I said anything which came through differently than that, I would like what I have just said to be substituted.
Does that satisfy you, Dr. Schilf?
DR. SCHILF: Unfortunately, I am not quite in agreement with you as yet. what Mr. King just described is the contents of the document in the document book. His former explanation, however, was somewhat more extensive; he wont into more detail and it referred to the fact that out of 290 cases only in one case a pardon was not denied, but in one case the decision of the Minister was disapproved; and to the contrary that the Minister would have granted a pardon which Thierack had suggested. Therefore, in our difference of opinion, we are concerned only with one sentence in this document which, in any case, over the sound system was given the wrong meaning - the opposite meaning that it should have. I would only like to find out whether in the English transcript the incorrect meaning was also given. Then, I would have to apply for correction of the transcript. If I may make a suggestion, I would suggest to have Mr. King road this small paragraph - then the matter will really be clarified.
MR. KING: Actually I do not think that Dr. Schilf is in any disagreement at all, on the basis of what ho has just said.