Taking into regard also the opinion you expressed on the sentence, Sir, I now ordered the remission of the sentence and of the costs of proceedings by way of pardon, as well as the stricking out of the penalty note in the criminal records."
Signed, "Dr. Schlegelberger."
The next letter is to be found on page 24 of the English text. It is dated Berlin, 16 December 1941. It is addressed to the Reich Minister of Justice. It begins:
"Dear Reich Minister:
"In pursuance to your letter of 4 December 1941 I have directed the Chief Reich Public Prosecutor to make an appeal against the sentence. It is my opinion too that the statement of a juvenile, with many prior convictions made against a police officer, is not a sufficient basis for such a sentence as was pronounced.
"Making an appeal has the legal effect that proceedings will be taken up again. This makes it possible for me to quash the proceedings, and that is what I intend to do.
"Heil Hitler. Your obedient servant, Dr. Schlegelberger."
THE PRESIDENT: I note this underscoring in the English text. Is that in the original document?
MR. KING: That is in the original document too, Your Honor.
The next letter is to be found on page 25 of the English text. It is dated 24 December 1941, and it is addressed to the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery, Dr. Lammers. It begins:
"Dear Reich Minister:
"With reference to my letter of 16 December 1941 I beg to inform you that I have made a special appeal with the Reich Supreme Court against the sentence of 8 August 1941 of the Penal Court at Stendal. By this, the condeming sentence on the Hauptwachtmeister of the Police, Wilhelm Klinzmann, for having inflicted injuries has been removed. So I have quashed the proceedings according to the authorization given to me by the Fuehrer on 3 September 1939.
"Your obedient Servant, Dr. Schlegelberger."
The last letter in this series, or in this document, is to be found on page 28. It is dated 11 February 1942. It is addressed to the Reich Minister:
"I thank you cordially for your efforts in quashing the proceedings against Klinzmann whom I have since promoted to Meister of the Municipal Police. Only by this solution could in my opinion the sound sentiment of the people be taken into accound and confidence in German justice be maintained.
"Heil Hitler. Your obedient servant, H. Himmler."
The prosecution now offers as Exhibit 107 the document NG-612.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: Your Honor, this would be a convenient breaking point for us, if the Court is disposed to rise at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess for 15 minutes at this time.
(A recess was taken).
THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: The Prosecution may proceed.
MR. KING: I will ask the court, the interpreters and counsel to turn to Book 1. The Prosecution would like to introduce, at this time, the Document NG-346 which is to be found at Page 54 in English text and Page 51 in the German text. This will become, when offered in evidence, Exhibit 108.
This is a note dated the Fuehrers headquarters, 30 May 1944. Is is marked "Secret" and "Not for Publication." The document shows on its face that it was initialed by Thierack. It is we the People's Judgment of Anglo-American Murderers.
"During the past weeks English and North-American fliers have repeatedly shot at children playing on play-grounds, at women and children working in the fields, at ploughing peasants, at vehicles on the highway, at trains, etc., from a low height, thus murdering in the meanest manner defenseless civilians -- especially women and children.
"It has happened several times that members of the crew of such air craft who had jumped out or made a forced landing, were lynched on the spot by the highly indignation population immediately after their arrest.
"No police or criminal proceedings have been taken against citizens who have taken part herein."
This is signed by M. Bormann.
On the next page, also dated May 30, 1944, is a note to all Gauleiters and Kreisleiters. The document on its face, shows it was also initialed by Thierack. It states:
"The Chief of the Party Chancellery requests that the Kreisleiters inform the Ortsgruppenleiters only verbally of the contents of the circular.
"(signed) Friedrichs."
The Prosecution now offers in evidence, the document NG-354 as Exhibit 108.
DR. GRUBE: May it please the Tribunal, we do not think that the document which has been presented to us originated from Thierack. According to our opinion, we are concerned with an order of the Party Chancellery which was sent to the Reichleiters, Gauleiters and liason leaders of the Reich.
The second letter of 30 May 1944, was sent to the Gauleiters and Kreisleiters It was sent from the Party Chancellery. In our document, there is no reference to this having originated from Thierack.
MR. KING: I think, Your Honors, the matter can be cleared up very quickly. Counsel for the defense has stated, as I get it, that the letter did not originate from Thierack, and that any statement to the effect that it did, would be mis-leading. I do not think the Prosecution has any quarrel with that statement. We merely wish to point out that the document in our possession is initialed by Thierack, which shows that it came to his attention. That is the only point we wish to make with reference to Thierack's initials, not necessarily that the document originated with him. We do not know about that. We only know that it came to his attention; that the document we have was initialed by him.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Counsel for Defendant Rothenberger, Mr. President, Dr. Grube has just stated that the Reich Ministry as regards Dr. Theirack has made some note on this document. There is no mention of this whatsoever. I therefore request that you do not receive this exhibit in evidence. The representative of the Prosecution regards this document as important because Dr. Thierack supposedly initialed this. In our document we are not informed at all about any such not. I therefore request that a photostatic copy be made of this letter and distributed to defense counsel.
MR. KING: Your Honors, the Prosecution asks you if there is any inclination on our part to deliberate on the receipt of this document in evidence? If you have, the Prosecution would ask you to withhold the final decision until the next two documents in the this series are presented. It becomes important to know, we think, that Thierack was aware of the contents of the document we have just introduced into evidence. We offer it merely to show that the Reich Minister of Justice knew of this document. In fact, his initials appear on it. 462
THE PRESIDENT: As I understand your request, you desire that we withhold ruling on this exhibit until the next two documents have been read?
MR. KING: That is right.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be done.
MR. SCHILF: Schilf for the defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg. I would like to state in connection with this the following: that just now the second letter which was read of the 20,5,1944 of Exhibit 108, there is a note that the document which is at hand for us has the name Friedrich. This name was Friedrichs, an "s" at the end of the name, and therefore I would like to clarify this matter, because there is also another high official whose name is Friedrich, and under such circumstances, one of these may be called as a witness for the defense. Perhaps I may request the prosecutor to clarify this matter. On the photo copy which I have just received, the signature is actually Friedrich, and maybe I may request you that a German interpreter at hand where the signature is Friedrich to change it.
MR. KING: The document indeed shows that it's Friedrichs rather than Friedrich, and the prosecution suggests that the document be amended by circulation another sheet which shows that the name is misspelled in the original. That must be an error in the original German. The original English is correct. May I see a copy of the German on that, please? (Mr. King is offered a copy). Yes, that is correct. The mistake is only in the German. The English is correct. The English corresponds with the photostatic copy, so the prosecution will, assuming this exhibit is accepted in evidence, at a later time circulate a correction to that in the German.
THE PRESIDENT: I take it there are two officials whose names are very nearly alike; the only difference being the final "s".
MR. KING: I gather that is the situation, Your Honor. I am not aware of the other Friedrich at this moment.
THE PRESIDENT: The English translation has it with the final "s" and that is correct?
MR. KING: Yes, the English translation is correct. It corresponds with the photostatic copy, Your Honor.
I shall proceed on the assumption that in introducing the next two documents, that they will eventually be admitted into evidence, and for purposes of our bookkeeping, we will give them tentative exhibit numbers which are seriatim with those already introduced.
The next exhibit which we would like to introduce is the document 635-PS, which is to be found on Page 56 of the English and Page 52 of the German. It will became, when offered and accepted in evidence, Exhibit 109. In connection with this, the prosecution points out at this time an omission which occurred in the translation. The omission consists of handwritten notes on the document which the translators ignored in the original translation of the document. The notes consists of several lines, as can be seen from the photostatic copy. I think perhaps, in strict accordance with the rules, these additional lines come under the 24-hour rule and should have been circulated to counsel in advance. However, they only became available to us this morning and they have not been circulated in advance. I do have the copies here in English and German, and if defense counsel has no objection, we would like to distribute the additional material at this time. Perhaps we should distribute it first and then ask them if they have objections.
MR. SCHILF: Mr. President, I would request you to allow me that I see the photo copy, the Exhibit, that I might submit it to the defendant Klemm, if I may do so, in order to establish whether his initials are actually those shown on the original. The copy which we have just received states that those are the initials of Klemm. I may request that the prosecutor will permit me to show these to the defendant Klemm during this sitting.
THE PRESIDENT: You may have a moment to do so.
(Defense Counsel Schilf offers document to defendant Klemm.)
THE PRESIDENT: Will Dr. Schilf insist on the 24-hour rule?
MR. SCHILF: No.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that you waive the 24-hour rule for the moment, is that right?
MR. SCHILF: Yes.
MR. KING: The document 635-PS which appears at Page 56 in Document Book 1-E together with the additional sheet which has just been circulated, together constitute this document, which when offered will become Exhibit 109.
It's to be found on Page 52 of the German. This is addressed to the Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. Thierack, and it comes from the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery. It is dated: Berlin, 4 June 1944, regarding: "People's justice against Anglo-American murderers."
Most revered Dr. Thierack, The chief of the Party Chancellery informed me about the enclosed transcript of a secret circular letter and requested me likewise to inform you.
I herewith comply with this and beg you to consider how far you **at to instruct the Courts and district attorneys with it.
The Reichs Leader and chief of the German Police has, as I was further told by executive leader Borman, so instructed his police-leaders.
Heil Hitler Your very devoted Dr. Lammers" Now the handwriting which appears on the document and which subject is on the additional sheet which we have distributed this morning, reads as follows.
It is first initialed by the defendant Klemm. It contains the Roman numeral IV, followed by these words:
"Return note with the addition that such cases are to be submitted to me for the purpose of their examination for quashing in case proceedings are pending."
Then the initialed signature: Thierack.
DR. SCHILF: (Attorney for Defendant Klemm and Mettgenberg) Mr. President, I am sorry if I return now to this document.
I want, however, to clarify the twenty-four hour notice business, and, to talk about the German interpretation of that which the prosecutor has just now read, was signed by Klemm or supposed to have been signed by Klemm. According to the copy, which I have at hand, various notes are made which at the upper-most corner the so-called stamp of the Reich Justice Ministry were dated the 7th of June, 1944, and that is to say, it is stamped with the Department which has registered this letter, that is to say, the Department of the Reich Ministry No. 4. According to this stamp, then after this stamp we have a signature which I can't at the moment read; it is a copy; one of the gentlemen has seen this document. According to this I cannot actually read it; it seems to me that underneath it there is a signature of K.L., that is to say that nothing else than the signature of the defendant Klemm has been submitted; the letter was submitted to Klemm and he actually saw it; there is no order of Klemm, but I have seen it. And now underneath that the is an order and that contains what the prosecutor has read, with the request that such cases be submitted to me for the purpose of their examination for quashing because these proceedings are pending; and under this order there is then the name, actually abbreviations of the name Therack, his signature T.H., that is to say the signature of the Minister Therack, and from this local arrangement, we get the fact t0hat Therack, as Minister, has requested an order, according to which in his capacity as Minister, he wants to have all such cases submitted to him. The signature of Klemm only appears because he has seen the document, but he has had no order; the order was only given the Ministry about that, and all cases were to be submitted to him as Ministry I consider it necessary to clarify this and to clarify the initials from the third copy.
MR. KING: We take the position, concerning what has just been said, too much of it is argument, arguing as to what part Klemm played in this program The Prosecution at this time does not seek to show anything but the fact that Klemm's initials appear on this document, and, therefore, the document must have been seen by him.
We do not at this time wish to draw any conclusions from that fact, and I think as to that fact defense counsel is in agreement with us. I infer that they do not question the fact that Klemm's initials are on this document. We, therefore, offer on the same basis as Exhibit No. 108 this Exhibit, which is Document 635-PS, as Exhibit No. 109, to be received in evidence by the Court after we have presented the next document which is NG-149; that appears in Document Book I-E, at page 57. However, I would like to point out that in assembling this document, a number of pages were reversed to such an extent we felt it was simpler if we got out another document assembled in the proper order; and we have done that. Copies were distributed to the German Information Center and we have additional copies here this morning for those who did not receive them. It will make it much easier to follow the presentation if we have copies before us in the order that they appear in the original. The Prosecution asks the Court and defense counsel, translators and transcribers to disregard the copy in the book, and be concerned only with the copy which has been distributed. We would first like to read the letter which appears on page 5 of the document we have just circulated. It is dated June 14, 1944; it is from the Chief of the High Command of the Armed Forces; and it is to the Foreign Office, Ambassador Ritter, then located in Salzburg:
"In connection with home and foreign press reports concerning the treatment of terrorist airmen," -- I neglected to call the attention of the Court to the fact that this is also labeled "draft".
"In connection with home and foreign press reports concerning the treat ment of terrorist airmen who are falling into the hands of the population, an unambigious fixation is needed of the concept of what facts constitute a criminal act in this sense. At the same time the procedure should be established as to the publication of such cases which have led either to a lynching by the population or - in case of apprehension of terrorist airmen armed forces or police - to a special treatment by the SD.
In agreement with the Commander-in-chief of the Air Force, I intend to write the communication, a draft of which is attached, which should be an instruction to the commander of the Airmen Reception Camp at Overursel.
It concerns such cases in which, according to an investigation made in this camp, it is found suitable to segregate the culprit, owing to confirmation of suspicion, and to transfer him to the SD.
Previous to any publicity in the press, by radio, etc. it must be ensured that name, unit, place of crime and other detailed circumstances present a perfectly clear picture, whose publication may effect the intended result of deterring from further murders. In this connection, the formulation of publication should make allowance for the circumstance that enemy protests of all kinds are to be expected. Therefore, and in agreement with the Chief of the Security Police and the SD and with the Director of Censorship, it is intended that, prior to any publication, and until further notice, an agreement is to be reached between the High Command of the Air Forces, the Operations Staff of the Armed Force, the Foreign Office, and the SD, in order to settle facts, date and form of publication.
You are requested to confirm, if possible not later than 18th inst., that you agree with the above principles as well as with the procedure intended for publications."
We not turn to page 8 of the document which has been circulated. This is a letter dated Salzburg, June 20, 1944. It is a secret Reich matter, and is labeled a draft. It is:
"To the Chief of the High Command of the Armed Forces.
"Subject: Treatment of enemy terrorist airmen.
"The Foreign Office agrees to the intended measures as a whole notwithstanding the clearly palpable objections from the view of foreign policy and international law.
"Examination in detail should differentiate between cases of lynching and cases of special treatment by the SD.
"I. In cases of lynching, a sharply defined establishment of criminal facts, according to paragraphs 2-4 of the letter of June 29th, is not very important. First, a German authority is not directly responsible; death has already taken place before some German authority deals with the matter. Further the circumstances will be such, as a rule, that it will not be difficult to represent the case in a suitable manner on publication. Accordingly, in cases of lynching, the principal aim will be to deal suitably with the individual case on publication.
"II. The procedure suggested for special treatment by the SD with subsequent publication, would only be defensible if Germany would openly repudiated at the same time, and in this connection, the obligations under International Law which are in force now and which Germany still recognizes. When an enemy airman has been apprehended by the armed forces or by the police and been transferred to the Airmen Reception Camp Oberursel, his legal status has become co ipso that of a POW. Concerning the criminal prosecution and sentencing of POW and the carrying-out of death sentences against POW, definite rules have been established by the POW agreement of July 27, 1929, such as e.g., paragraph 66,..."
Here, he is referring to the Geneva Convention.
"which provides that a sentence of death may be carried out no sooner that three months after notification cf the death sentence to the protecting power in paragraph 63; sentencing of a POW, only by the same courts and according to the same procedure as applicable to members of the German armed forces.
These regulations are so precisely worded that it would be hopeless to try to veil any infraction thereof by a clever form of publication of individual cases. On the other hand, the Foreign Office can not recommend a formal renunciation of the POW agreement on this occasion. A way of escape would be the following viz. that suspect enemy airmen should not be allowed at all to have the legal status of POW, that means that one should tell them immediately on capture, that they were not to be considered as POW., but as criminals, that they be handed over, not to authorities competent for POW, such as a POW camp, but to the authorities competent for the prosecution of criminal acts, and that the then be sentenced in special summary judicial proceedings. If, during the interrogation under these proceedings, the circumstances prove that this special procedure is not applicable to the case on hand, then in individual cases the concerned airmen could afterwards be given the legal status of POW. by transfer to the Airmen Reception Camp at Oberursel. Of course, even this opening would not prevent Germany from being blamed for infractions against valid agreements, and perhaps even not the taking of reprisal measures against German POW. Anyway, such an opening would enable us to keep to a clear viewpoint and free us of the necessity of either openly repudiating valid agreements or of making use, on publication of every single case, of excuses which nobody will believe."
The last portion of this document which we want to read appears on page 1 It is dated July 5, 1944. It is a secret command matter, entitled:
"Notes concerning 'terrorist Airmen'.
"In the noon conference cf July 5th, the Fuehrer decreed as follows:
"According to press reports, the Anglo-Americans intend for the future, as a reprisal action against 'V 1', to attack from the air also small places without any economic or military importance. If this information is true, the Fuehrer desires publication through radio and press that any enemy airman who participates in such an attack and is shot down during it can not claim to be treated as a POW, but will be killed as soon as he falls into German hand This measure is to apply to all attacks on smaller places, which are not military, communications, nor armament objectives, etc.
, and which accordingly have no significance from the point of view of the war.
"For the time being, no measures are to be taken, but only to be discussed with WR and Foreign Office."
THE PRESIDENT: That last part did not seem to come through in German.
MR. KING: May I inquire of the interpreters if a translation was made of the last part? The Counsel for the Defense apparently did not receive any part of that. I would like to inquire whether the Defense Counsel has the German transcript of that which was just read.
(Indication of an affirmative assent by Defense Counsel.)
THE PRESIDENT: In that event it would not seem very important whether it came over the wires or whether you read it from the manuscript.
MR. KING: We might explain for the benefit of the Defense Counsel, who apparently did not get the reading through their earphones, that we read the last document from NG-149, which is dated July 5, 1944, and is a summary of a conference of July 4th held by Hitler.
In view of the fact that the Defense Counsel has a copy, and that we read it in its entirety, it would not seem necessary to repeat it because of the mechanical difficulty.
THE PRESIDENT: I take it for granted that the Defense Counsel has heard what you said at this time?
MR. KING: I assume so from their lack of response, Your Honor.
We come now to the question of the admission of Documents 108, 109, and the document which we have just read, NG-149, as Exhibit 110. The Court will recall that on Document 108, Thierack's initials appear. We said at the time the document was introduced that we merely wanted to show that the document had come to the attention of Thierack. Exhibit 109 contains handwritten by Thierack and the initials of Klemm which have certain significance which the Prosecution, will in due course, refer to again.
And, Exhibit 110, which is Document NG-149, which provides certain background, and which perhaps helps explain the Exhibits 108 and 109.
We, therefore, at this time ask the Court to receive in evidence the three Exhibits, 108, 109 and 110.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands that no question is made that the document was, in fact, initialed by Klemm?
DR. SCHILF: (for defendant Klemm): I have not had the opportunity to have the photo copy of Exhibit 108. I would like to request the Prosecution, as an exception, to let me have a photo copy of Exhibits 108 and 109, so that when we are working on this case we will not have an inadmissible copy, but that we will have the photo copy; that we will have them before us and we will see from them, we will gather the conclusions and we will see that they are correct. If it does not make it too difficult for the Prosecution, then I believe that one photo copy for these two exhibit numbers could be submitted.
MR. KING: The Prosecution would be very glad to furnish one or more copies of the exhibits if the Defense Counsel so desires them, Exhibits 108 and 109. There is no reason at all why this can not be done, and it will be done as quickly as possible, probably within the next day or so.
THE PRESIDENT: I should like to repeat my question. Is that a question raised that Klemm actually initialed this document?
DR. SCHILF: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That is questioned, is it?
DR. SCHILF: The initials are correct; the initials are correct.
JUDGE BRAND: On which exhibit are the initials?
MR. KING: On 109, Your Honor. It might be helpful to the Court if we passed up the photostatic copy.
(Document submitted to Tribunal)
If the Court will notice, in the upper right-hand corner the initials "KM" or "KL" appear.
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem to the Tribunal that if this document is actually initialed by Klemm and that it has therefore been brought to his notice, it has some probative value, not as much, of course, as if he had made some order concerning it. However, the mere fact that he had seen it gives it some probative value, and therefore it is admissible.
We will therefore receive all three exhibits in evidence at this time.
MR. KING: We had hoped this morning to clean up, with the exceptions of one document, the exhibits represented in the series of I document books. We have had certain mechanical reproduction difficulties, and we have not been able to do that. The fact is that only document book I-b is now complete and may be considered as such. The others have one or more documents left to introduce into evidence, and we will do that at the very first opportunity. We may be able to accomplish some of that right after lunch. In any event, we will do it as soon as possible.
Since we are now about ready to begin with the presentation of document book II, it might be well to recess at this time an then take up with document book II, unless these other documents from book I are ready at that time.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: May it please Your Honors, I would like to say to the Court and to defense counsel that we are not unduly critical of the mechanic aids that we have received, but we had every reason to believe that on this day we would find, by reason of the things that we had previously done, that this book could be cleared up.
These things continue to happen, and it seems to be part of the trial of these cases. We are sorry. I mean, I want the Court to understand that we ourselves have not broken faith with the Court. We have been working during the time that we were away but these things do occur, and, without placing blame, I just say that they occur.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will recess at this time until 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours).
AFTERNOON SESSION
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. KING: May I ask the Court and counsel and the staff to turn to Document Book C -- I am sorry, Document B -- B-1, to Page 59 in the English text. That would be Document NG-388. I believe I am correct in stating that that document is complete in both the English and German texts. This is a letter dated Hamburg, 6 September 1941. It is to the State Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger, the Reich Ministry of Justice. Subject: Report on general situation.
I would like to turn in the English text to Page 61, which is page 3 of that document, and read the one paragraph under II on that page.
"In order to smooth over tension sometimes existing between the Secret State Police (Gestapo) and the judges of the Penal Courts, I have agreed with the Higher SS and Police Leaders that the concentration camps located in my district be visited by judges working for the political Penal Courts. The first very extensive inspection of the concentration camp in Neuengamme took place recently. In a free discussion with the camp commander many mutual understandings --" it says here -- "were removed." I am sure that is to be "misunderstandings." "I recommend this procedure for other districts also."
Subject to clearing up that one sentence we would at this time offer in evidence as Exhibit 111 Document NG-388.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence subject to that understanding.
MR. KING: May we have the record show that the original photostatic copy which we are about to send up to the Secretary General shows "misunderstanding" to be the correct word.
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: This is your Exhibit 111?
MR. KING: 111 is correct.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, with the acvent of Document Books 2 and 3 the Prosecution enters a new phase of its case. Before offering Document NG-715 in evidence, the Prosecution has a few descriptive words about that document to say.
DR. SCHILF: (Counsel for Defendants Mettgenberg and Klemm): May it please the Tribunal, I take the liberty before the Prosecution commences with Document Books 2 and 3 to make a few remarks to Document Book 1, so that when we now discuss further document books, that the matters that are necessary for the defense in regard to Document Book 1 will be mentioned.
I regret that I have to request you again to return to Document Book 1. The first matter to which I have to refer is Exhibit 68. Exhibit 68 has the number NG-159. This is in Document Book 1-E, and in the German Document Book page 175. I regret that I can not say on what page of the English Document Book it is. I request the interpreters to find it first in the German Document Book, that is 175 of the German text. In the second paragraph, page 6. It is Document Book 1-B, page 170 in the English Document Book. That is NG-159. That is the letter of the 9th of September 1942. Reichministry of Justice, to the President of the People's Court. That is the second paragraph. It begins: "It was clearer in the case of the People's Court than--". The sixth line of this paragraph in German, the sentence begins as follows: "For this reason you must have every charge submitted to you, that is, recognize those cases in which it is necessary in confidential and convincting discussion with the judge competent for the verdict to emphasize what is necessary from the point of view of the State." As the Prosecution noticed, incidentally, in making its presentation of this document, it seems the adjective "vertrauensvoll", full of confidence, through the translation into English, seems to have been distorted somewhat in its meaning. "Vertrauensvoll the German word, means not confidential, that is, not secret or under the oath of secrecy, but as an open discussion for the purpose of convincing. That is the way it has been used. That is the meaning of the German text. And as I have been told, the possibility exists that this work has not been translated in its proper meaning into English.
The second point which I would like to mention at this time is in Exhibit 42. That is again Document Book 1-B. It is on Page 95 in the German, page 84 in the English. This document, No. 215, concerns the collaboration with the SD. In the second -- that is, on page 3 of this particular document, there is a copy of an excerpt from the camp report of the General Public Prosecutor in Jena of 30 September 1943.
It is NG-219. May I ask whether the English translation is there?
MR. KING: May I interrupt for one moment? I understand that the defense counsel is addressing himself to Document NG-215, which is to be found on page 163 of Document Book 1-B, is that correct?
THE PRESIDENT: We understand it is 219 at page 84 of the English Book 1-B. I think defense counsel probably was in error in erroneously stating it was 215 when he meant 219.
DR. SCHILF: I meant 219. May I continue? The third page of this sequence contains this copy of an excerpt. Here the German Administration of Justice in the third part of the German text. I would like to read it in order to be able to clarify it. The third page in the German document book after the beginning of document 219.