Measures such as evacuation of Jews from the Netherlands were during the time when I was in the Netherlands, never discussed.
Q. I, too, have to revert to Theresienstadt once again. I believe it is necessary for you to tell the Court with particular clarity when and how long you were in Leitmeritz, that is to say, in the proximity of Theresienstadt.
A. I went twice to Leitmeritz during the time I was Undersecretary, and each time I stayed one day. I went there to avoid that 10 to 12 Referents had to go to Berlin to make reports. In order to avoid that, I alone or I and my personal Referent went to Leitmeritz. That caused less difficulty. On one of those trips, by mistake, we came to that barrier where we had to turn back. That barrier was so far away from the town of Theresienstadt that I did not see the town itself. That was still the open road and there was a house by the side of it.
THE PRESIDENT: You have covered that matter. You have fully explained that.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. Mr. La Follette, interpreted your testimony in the direct examination about the so-called "model ghettos" in Theresienstadt. That is how they were called as if particularly on the basis of the photographs that appeared in illustrated papers, you had had the impression that things were very nice there (Wunderschuen). I believe that was the expression that Mr. La Follette used yesterday. Will you tell us something about that?
A. That I said that or that I had that impression, I did not say. I only stressed that there, though isolated, the Jews had their own administration. They had their own Mayor. They had their own Municipal Council and their own police, as was evident from those pictures.
Q. The next point is Exhibit 437. Exhibit 437 was put to you in great detail. It concerns the measures for simplification in penal cases, during the war, which were discussed in great detail at the Party Chancellery. Mr. La Follette put it to you that you, during those detailed discussions, among other things suggested that the police were to get an independent penal law, and it was to be avoided that in the case of sentences passed by the police the courts participated at all. Will you explain to the Tribunal whether the police had its own penal law already before 1933 in the case of people who had transgressed against the traffic laws that is minor cases such as you mentioned.
A. That right of the police to deal with trifles in that way, so to speak--in a summary way--that right existed for a long time before 1933. I also stated that by far in the majority of cases, these people had been speeding on the road, had passed the red light had overtaken people on the wrong side, etc. Usually fines of 10 to 20 marks were imposed.
THE PRESIDENT: Herr Klemm, I recollect that same testimony with reference to these minor transgressions which were handled by the police. He has already given that and we recollect it.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. I only wanted to know whether these provisions existed already before 1933 and you have already told us that they did.
A. Yes.
Q. The next question refers to Exhibit 529. The prosecution introduced that cross examination as NG--1580. Do you have that letter before you?
A. No, but I have read it through.
Q. That letter is dated 16 August '44. The place where that so-called preliminary note was entered in Munich.
Can you tell us where that note was made and who wrote it?
A. According to the copy which was given to me yesterday, that note is signed "Helm". Helm was the General Prosecutor at the District Court of Appeal, Munich, at that time. Ministerial Councillor Mietschke from the Reich Ministry of Justice at that time probably was the District Referent for the area of the District Court of Appeal, Munich. In that capacity, he had a discussion with Helm, the General Public Prosecutor. In the course of that discussion, several problems were dealt with. Helm made a note of than, and as it says "zwv"--that is to say, for further discussion--("Zur weitevern Verfuegung")--he passed than on to the Senior Public Prosecutor Keitel.
Q. We must now refer to Exhibit 252, only with one question, though. That document Book 111-L. Have you got your copy before you? The question as to what constitutes a clear case and what constitutes a doubtful case had been discussed in great detail. I would like to ask you to tell us a little more about the doubtful cases. Would you tell us whether those doubtful cases were reported on by only one Referent or whether there was a secone or Co-Referent, too?
A. The name "Doubtful and Clear Cases" are purely technical sub-divisions for that report list. These terms were in use only for those lists within the Ministry. The courts and the prosecution offices outside the Ministry did not know at all that division for the list and use of the Ministry. That division into clear and doubtful cases was made, above all, because the doubtful cases, within the meaning of the report lists, were reported on by the collaborartor---the Mitarbeiter--and not by the Referent. That is evident, too, from these lists which I have before me, for with the doubtful cases the collaborator's name who reported on them is always entered on the list.
The name of the referent always appears in the heading of the various groups of the death sentences listed. That did not prevent, and in the case of reports made to me, the clear cases too were examined very carefully by myself. It is evident from the list on page 2, which lists reports made to me, that in the Lindner Case where the sentence had already been passed, but the written opinion had not yet been submitted, I, although the case was reported to me as clear, refused to cake a decision about refusing the decency plea. Likewise, on page 92 where the Mattel Case appears, No. 24 on the list, a report was made to no about an immediate ("Blitz") execution. I refused to cake a decision at that moment and demanded do see a written report first.
Q. Will you turn to page 47, please; that is page 47 in the German text; in the English text it is pages 52 to 53. In the heading it says: 12 October, 1944, capital "A"; death sentences in high trearson and treason cases; that is followed by the name of the Referent Landgerichtsdirector Jaeger. You just said that name appeared in the heading.
A. That is the referent; the referent then reported on the socalled clear cases - clear in the technical sense.
Q. That is followed by a small "a", doubtful; then, the name Havemann comes; obviously that is the witness Professor Havemann who was heard by this Tribunal here.
A. Yes.
Q. On the right hand of the page it says collaborator Teyden.
A. That is the collaborator who made the report on the case to the Minister of Justice on that day.
Q. Thank you. Yesterday, in great detail it was discussed as to how far you had been connected with police interrogations. You told us in great detail that between the years of 1936 to 1937 you dealt with such matters; that you did not do so after 1939 because a special jurisdiction had been established for the SS and police. For 1936 and 1937 you were asked -
THE PRESIDENT: 1936 and 1939.
Q. Yes; you were asked whether the Administration of Justice, in general, did not possess the authority to institute prosecutions against the police, not only in individual cases, but, so to speak, as inspecting authority, that is to say that the police as a whole was controlled and investigated by the Ministry of Justice. And, when you were asked about that matter, by Judge Harding, as far as I know, you did not give a clear reply.
A. The Administration of Justice neither possessed the actual means of authority, nor the legal possibilities to supervise the police or to institute general investigations of it. The supervising authority of the police was the Minister of the Interior, and not the Ministry of Justice. Even inside the Ministry of Interior, Himmler had become more and more independent. The Administration of Justice did not have ah independent police to control or supervise Himmler's police -if I may put it that way. We were dependent merely upon the one police which was subdivided in ordinary police, criminal police, Gestapo, health police, etc. Before 1939 we merely had the possibility to investigate one or the other case which became known to us. After 1939, however, punishable acts committed by individual policemen, too, were taken over by the independent jurisdiction of the police, that is to say the SS and police jurisdiction.
Q. My last question: Mr. Lafollette read out a list to you, a list of matters of which you knew; and a list of matters which you said you had known nothing about. It was road out very fast and I could not follow every point, but concerning the list of matters where you said that allegedly you knew nothing about them, he said that you had known nothing of the fact that Jewish property had been confiscated. Would you toll us something about that? Evidently that is a legal provision which was published in the Reich Law Gazette. Will you tell whether you knew nothing about that?
A. That question was connected with my statements on Exhibit 204. That concerned the regulations which appeared at the time at the Reich Party Chancellery under the heading, curtailment of legal remedies for Jews. In respect to that I said that for the legal group III-C, that work was concluded with draft 2 which was made in August 1942; but the Legal Group III-C and I knew nothing further because we no longer participated in drafts 3, 4 and there is, I believe, even a draft 5. As for the confiscation of Jewish property, naturally I heard about that; and, after all, that was mentioned in the Reich Law Gazette; the 13th Amendment to the Reich Citizen Law was published in the Reich Law Gazette, but I knew nothing about the way that Reich Citizen Law had originated. This catalogue which the prosecutor has compiled contains other points, and I was charged with remembering them well. I have already pointed out that most of the things I was able to reconstruct only with the aid of the documents which the prosecution itself submitted. To name merely one example, if I still remember that in 1938 one sentence in a case of high treason and 16 in cases of treason were passed by the People's Court, the reason is that I know that from the official periodical "Deutsche Justiz". During the six months that I have been in prison hero I have looked through all the volumes of "Deutsche Justiz".
DR. SCHILF: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further re-direct examination of this witness? There being no further re-direct, the witness is excused subject to the possible necessity of recalling him in connection with documents to be offered by both parties.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Court, I would now like to call the witness Hans Fritsche, and I wish to call him for the Defense as a whole. I also have a few questions to ask the witness on behalf of the defendant Klemm.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
HANS FRITSCHE, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE BLAIR:
Hold up your right hand and be sworn. Repeat after me the following oath:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHILF: (Attorney for the Defendant Klemm):
Q. Witness, will you tell please the Tribunal your name, the place and the date of your birth?
A. Hans Fritsche. I was born on 21 April 1900, at Bochum.
Q. Herr Fritsche, before the IMT you were indicted as a major war criminal.
A. Yes.
Q. What was the sentence?
A. I was acquitted on all counts under which I was indicted.
Q. Herr Fritsche, would you please describe to the Tribunal what official positions you held in the period from 1933 until 1945?
A. From 1933 until approximately 1938 I was the editor-in-chief of the news service of the German radio, the so-called wireless service; from 1938 until March or April, 1942, I was the head of the department for the German Press, in the Press Department of the Reich Government, in the Ministry of Propaganda. From 1942, in December until 1945 I was the head of the radio department in the same Ministry.
Q. What do you know about information which was available to the various Reich Ministers on matters of public life and foreign countries?
A. I cannot judge what information the individual Reich Ministers and individual Reich Ministries obtained from their own spheres of work, but I believe that I can judge as to what took place in the way of exchange of information between the various ministries.
Furthermore, I believe I can give an opinion as to the extent of information which the various ministries received regarding events abroad.
First as to information on domestic affairs, cabinet meetings, I believe since the year 1937, no longer took place. The representatives of the various Ministries tried very hard to obtain information from other departments; therefore, they sent representatives to the press conferences which from 1938 to 1942 were under my directions. They sent representatives for the purpose of giving information about their own sphere of work, but also for the purpose of receiving information. That happened especially at the small conferences which took place after the main conferences, the so-called "Nach-Boerse." Foreign news which the individual Ministries received were especially limited. With the exception of such an office as the Foreign Office, the other Ministries did not even receive the information which the leading German journalists received, and by that, I am referring to a group of about 1,000 people.
Q You spoke of a press conference and of a conference which was held after the main conference. Do you know whether representatives of the Ministry of Justice, for example, attended those conferences?
A They regularly attended the main news conferences; the socalled subsequent conferences they only attended occasionally.
Q Do you know whether representatives, again, for example, representatives of the Ministry of Justice attended the conferences with Goebbels?
A I do not know what conferences of Goebbels you are referring to.
Q I am referring to the conferences which I believe were held every day, the conferences at which Goebbels laid down the directives for the newspapers end for the journalistic work of that day.
A I do not remember ever having seen a representative of the Ministry of Justice at such a conference with Dr. Goebbels.
Q Was there also written news material which was sent to the various Ministries, and I am particularly interested in the Ministry of Justice?
A There was such written news material, but as far as it being dispatched to the various Ministries the practice varied.
Q Can you tell us what was the technical expression for that material which was sent out in that way?
A The so-called DNB. that is Deutsche Nechrichten Buero Dienst, the German News Agency, the red or blue service, was sent out to the various Ministries. That material was completely uncensored; it was not selected at all; it was the so-called raw material service. It contained all reports from the various news agencies like Havas, Reuters, Associated Press, United Press and-so-forth. It also contained material from the Russian News Agency, Tass. Secondly, it was a socalled monitoring service, that is a service which listed chronologically all reports from foreign radio stations, and that material was passed on without having been censored at all or having been edited or embellished.
Q Those were the written sources for news material. I now want to ask you were the Ministries, during the war, allowed to monitor foreign radio stations?
A No, they were prohibited to do so, with the exception of the Foreign Office, as far as I know, that is.
Q Did the Ministry of Justice also come under this prohibition from listening?
A I assume so because various justice authorities, in individual cases, asked the Monitoring Service for news material.
Q Can you tell us something about these individual cases. Was it a case of obtaining news material or was it connected with the Prosecution of a case?
A It was exclusively connected with the Prosecution of cases.
Q You mentioned the written sources for news material. Can you tell us where those monitoring reports came from; was that material compiled at your Ministry or did it come from other quarters?
A It did not come immediately from my Ministry; it came from an institute called "Seehaus Service". That was an institution that was run jointly by the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Propaganda, and which had a large machinery of more than 1000 people who monitored foreign radio stations. There was another similar institution, the socalled Research Office, which also worked with great accuracy, but with not the same speed.
Q From your position, you will be able to answer my question as to whether the Ministry of Justice had sources of special information atout the war situation?
A I consider that improbable, in fact, I consider it out of the question.
Q Can you tell us something as to whether the Ministry of Justice had information about the detailed plans of Hitler and Himmler?
A I consider that, too, out of the question.
Q Mr. Fritsche, the Prosecution in case III has submitted various documents which are to prove that the administration of justice maintained particular relations with your Ministry and particularly with your chief, Dr. Goebbels. I may point out to the Tribunal, I am now putting to the witness, Exhibit 66, that is NG-218, Document Book I-D, in the German text, page 132 following. This document contains a statement of 2 December 1941. I do not think I am wrong in saying that at that time, you were working at the Ministry.
A Yes.
Q It is signed by Dr. Schlegelberger, and addressed to the departmental chiefs; that is to say, the various chiefs of departments at the Ministry of Justice, and in regard to the relations between the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Propaganda, and the relations with Dr. Goebbels, the following is stated:
"Reichsminister Dr. Goebbels, therefore, has instructed the press and propaganda service to take into account that necessity in the case of ell publications" --- this concerns the necessity of strengthening the power of resistance of the German people.
I am continuing to quote:
"At the same time he asks that all events in the administration of justice, which could serve that aim, by being given particular emphasis, should be imparted to the Ministry of Propaganda. Furthermore, he initiated that all sentences which for some reasons had not been understood by the public or by the press were not to be immediately published in the press with adverse criticism, but were first to be passed on to the Ministry of Justice for examination".
Herr Fritsche, I assume that you have some information concerning the preliminaries for that apparent agreement between Goebbels and Dr. Schlegelberger, particularly as concerns the attacks in the press against sentences passed within the administration of justice?
A I do not remember that agreement, nor do I remember that on the basis of such an agreement Dr. Goebbels had issued appropriate instructions, but I do remember very well the struggle which was waged for many years by the Ministry of Justice against especially hasty criticism exercized by particularly sharp organs of the press of the sentences passed by the German courts. The Ministry of Justice was always complaining about improper attacks made by the press on sentences which some editors considered to be too lenient. As a result of those efforts by the Ministry of Justice. I very frequently had to admonish such aggressive organs of the press to practice restraint in their criticism of sentences.
Q During your official work in those days, did you hear about the attacks made in "Das Schwarze Korps", the periodical of the SS?
A The "Black Corps" was the paper which gave more cause than any other for such objections as I have just described. It was always necessary to admonish "Das Schwarze Korps" to be more careful. Because of the difficulties with "Das Schwarze Korps" , they were threatened several times to have their publication stopped altogether.
Q Herr Fritsche, I am now going over to quite a different point. In the trial here, it is of particular importance whether workers from the East, in particular from Poland, came to Germany voluntarily or not. Defendants and witnesses in this trial here have claimed that they were of the opinion that those people who worked here in the German Reich had come voluntarily. I am asking you, since you were at the Ministry of Propaganda at that time, what did the German public know about the so-called slave labor at the time. Secondly, I would like to ask you what, in your view, did the officials at the Ministry know about the same question?
A Concerning the subject, knowledge about slave labor, I have already made a detailed statement before the IMT. Concerning the question which you put to me, I have to emphasize explicitly that at that time, in the public, there was no basis for the whole concept of slave labor, such as it has been described today. I emphasize expressly that the representative of the Labor Kommissar of those days, Sauckel, at the news conference again and again emphasized that the workers from the various occupied territories had come voluntarily.
He did, to be sure, frequently speak of agreements which had been concluded with the governments of various occupied countries concerning the availability of workers from those territories, for example, agreements with the French government. However, the concept of slave labor was never mentioned in that connection, nor was there ever any basis which allowed conclusions to be drawn as to that concept. The German public saw hundreds of thousands of foreign workers go for walks on the roads; they saw them work freely in their places of work. German workers worked side by side with foreign comrades, at their own place of work.
It came as a great surprise to me, during the trial before the IMT, that Sauckel testified there that only an infinitesimally small number of foreign workers had come voluntarily.
It must be added that in my position as head of the German Press Department I very frequently dealt with the difficulties which arose from the fact that in recruiting foreign workers in occupied territories, too, far-reaching promises had been made which afterwards were not adhered to, for example, concerning food, accommodations, the possibility of sending money home in foreign currency, and so forth. My knowledge about such matters was also the knowledge gained at the press conferences and the conference that was held after the main conference. Therefore, as far as I see it, that was the only information which the ministries possessed, beyond the information available from the newspapers. I except, expressly, the Ministry of Labor, which I assume, within its own sphere of work, knew more details than the other ministries and the public.
Q. Did you know that there were supposed to have been difficulties because the individual employers, particularly in Poland, took workers away from one another?
A. Such cases were discussed frequently, particularly when journalists returned from trips or when others reported on their personal impressions at the press conference or the subsequent conferences.
Q. Was the German public informed about the agreements with states, as, for example, with France, about the loan or making available of laborers within the German Reich; that is to say, an exchange from one enterprise to another?
A. I have already mentioned that. Reports were made concerning such agreements with the governments of occupied countries.
Q. Did the reports only say that there were foreign workers in Germany, or were those matters stressed by way of propaganda in the press and over the radio?
A. They were particularly stressed. For example, certain German radio stations, at certain times of the day, dropped their general programs and inserted special programs for Polish, French, or other workers within the territory of the German Reich. There were also special events about which a great deal of propaganda was made, and it was an essential part of Germany's domestic propaganda to point out particularly that the representatives of so many European nations were working together here. Conferences were held, too, and public reports were made about them.
Q. Do you happen to know anything about am ordinance issued by Himmler in June of 1944? It was also published in the Reich Law Gazette. It was an ordinance whereby awards were given to Eastern workers, a coat of arms was put on their left sleeve, and that order by Himmler pointed out that these workers were a great help to the German manpower.
A. I do not remember that particular ordinance, but it does not appear to be outside the scope of what was customary in those days.
Q. I would now like to put a different question to you, Herr Fritsche, which relates to the knowledge of the German public, until the collapse, of events in the concentration camps. What did the public know about concentration camps, and how did the press and the radio inform the German public on that subject?
A. The German public, first of all, knew the fact that concentration camps had been established. In 1933 there was a public announcement that concentration camps had been established. The reasons that were given for it were that political conditions were abnormal. The German public showed many symptoms of unrest concerning such a phenomenon, which was not easily explainable out of a normal sense of justice in normal, peaceful times.
When, however, in 1934 it become known that the number of inmates of the concentration camps had been reduced to a very small figure, the German public calmed down. Various Quarters - the names of which I cannot give now from my recollection - did, at intervals, issue information about the concentration camps. The RSHA, among others, described the sanitary conditions in the camps, the problem of accommodations, food, etc. That information was altogether gratifying.
Approximately at the beginning of the war, Heydrich, who was then the chief of the RSHA, placed himself before the German and international press to be questioned back and forth about concentration camps. He gave figures concerning the number of inmates in concentration camps, which were far below the number of prison inmates in normal times.
Q. Excuse me if I interrupt you, but will you tell me when Heydrich made that statement?
A. As far as I know, it was in 1940.
In addition, there was also a vast number of rumors in circulation about the concentration camps. At the very beginning, in 1933, I myself heard about cases of ill-treatment which, because I believed the persons concerned were competent, I reported to the then Minister President Goering and the Minister of Interior Frick. I soon received an answer to those written reports to the effect that these matters were being investigated, and about three or four weeks later I was told by the Press Referent, and the head of the Gestapo in those days, Diels, that the guilty persons had been brought before a court. Other officials or representatives of public opinion will have had similar experiences.
The German public considered the 30th of June 1934, first of all, a purification of all those instances of incorrect behavior which had actually occurred in concentration camps. Until the outbreak of the war, comparatively little was heard about the subject of concentration camps. That subject became acute and timely again only at the moment when, during the war, the enemy radio stations spread details about atrocities and inhumane conditions in concentration camps.
I had taken down every single one of those, not hundreds but thousands of reports, and had them recorded, and, as far as it was possible for me, I had those matters checked. I was always told that those atrocities were not true. I emphasize that these matters were disputed in a form which, at the time, appeared credible to me. Naturally, I always made available to the German press and radio those denials of foreign reports about atrocities in concentration camps, which, above all, possessed also the raw material of those reports which had not been denied.
Q. If I understand you correctly, you said that you had foreign press and radio reports checked. Would you tell the Tribunal in what way those foreign radio and press reports were examined? Was that examination reliable? I would like to put it this way: Did you set up any way of making reliable examinations, or did you simply rely on such denials?
A.- I passed on such reports all the time to the RSHA, which was the competent authority, and the RSHA did not restrict itself to saying simply such and such a report is wrong, but in some cases it said that there is some nucleus of truth about this but the case has been distorted or exaggerated. In other cases the RSHA said, this is pure invention. I was not able to exercise control over individual cases but I tried to exercise a general control, and I believed I could do that by questioning individual SS leaders at the informal conferences after the main conference about the impressions which they themselves had gained at concentration camps. Thus, a journalist by the name of Raschke once gave a detailed report about a trip through all German concentration camps.
JUDGE BRAND: The Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q.- Mr. Fritsche, we talked about the knowledge of the concentration camps among the German population and about the fact that you investigated reports from abroad. In conclusion I should like to ask you, did that discussion about German concentration camp during the war continue, or were there any changes?
A.- Public discussion about concentration camps, of course, was put in the background in the same measure as aerial attacks on German cities increased. During those days and years the German population had worries which were more acute than to check reports which came from abroad and which up to that time had always been denied.
Q.- That concludes that question. But I ask you now to explain to the Tribunal what the German public knew about lynching of shot-down or parachuted Allied fliers and what the German public in general knew about the fact that Allied fliers had committed so-called terror acts.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I object, Your Honor, for the reason that what the German public knew is not relevant. The issue is what did the defendants in this particular dock know about that.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, may I say something in this connection? The Prosecution has submitted Exhibit 417, that is document 1676-PS, an excerpt from the Voelkische Beobachter of 28 and 29 May, 1944, by Dr, Goebbels. That article in the Voelkische Beobachter is entitled "A Lord Concerning the Enemy Air Terror." Furthermore, the Prosecution submitted exhibit 440, that is NG-1306 in Document Book I Supplement. I forgot to mention that Exhibit 417 is in Document Book 1-A. In the second document, Exhibit 440 in the form of an affidavit by Hans Beljowek, detailed statements are made concerning the fact that the circular decree of the Ministry of Justice was in an immediate connection with the article by Goebbels in the Voelkische Beobachter. The witness on the basis of his expert knowledge is in a position to elucidate as to what extent Goebbels put these questions before the German public.
Here the question arises for all defendants whether they knew anything about it that Allied fliers at all committed so-called terror acts, and furthermore as to whether Goebbels published a proclamation to the population to lynch the so-called terror fliers. This, in my opinion, is of the greatest importance.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is ready to rule. The question was what did the public know about the murder of Allied fliers. That question is irrelevant to this inquiry and the objection is sustained. Counsel has, however, indicated that he desired to. elicit from this witness answers as to what information the Goebbels propaganda ministry may have passed on to the general public. He may answer as to that, but the question as stated is objectionable, and the objection is sustained. We are concerned with the knowledge of the defendants.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q.- Mr. Fritsche, you have heard the decision of the Court. Will you please answer that question as far as it has been admitted? That is to say, did the propaganda ministry inform the German public about these questions, and if so, how?
A.- By Dr. Goebbels an article was issued which was submitted as a document in the trial before the IMT and which I had in my hands at that time. Now after the war the conclusion was drawn therefrom that Dr. Goebbels in that article incited to the murder of foreign fliers who after the destruction of their airplanes saved themselves by parachuting down. Neither in that article nor anywhere else did I find any similar public incitement on the part of Dr. Goebbels.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, witness, we are not concerned with your construction as to the meaning or effect of the instrument to which you refer. The question which was permitted you to answer relates to what, if any, information was given by the Ministry.