On Friday, I finished my statements in that respect with the words, "Conscience of duty on one side and humane feelings on the other side were the motives of the defendant Funk which held him at the post and thereby brought him into a situation which today is interpreted as criminal action and criminal activity."
speech for the defendant Funk, his motives and actions. Therefore, I shall deal with the SS gold deliveries to the Reichsbank, with the relation of the defendant Funk to the question of concentration camps. That is to say that I am going to start on page 58 of the written speech which has been submitted to you. that he was net only condemned by fate, in the year 1938, to issue executive regulations of laws which he condemned inwardly and disapproved of as no other man, but that he got associated once more, in the year 1942, in a particularly terrible manner with the persecution of the Jews; I am thinking new of the depot of the SS at the Reichsbank, of a matter, for the elucidation of which a moving picture has produced of the steel safe of the Frankfurt Branch of the Reichsbank and two witnesses were heard, Vice-president Emil Puhl and Reichsbank councillor Albert Thomas, at the preliminary proceedings on the occasion of his interrogation, on June 4th 1945 (of. P.S.-2828); at that time, however, no details were disclosed to him, and Funk has then made the some statement as he did before this tribunal, viz. that he had to deal with the matter in question but a few times and shortly, and that he had not attached any importance to it. This is the reason why he could, at first, not clearly remember those happenings any more during the proceedings here. Accordingly, he did not know anything more about than than he had mentioned. matter would be brought up in the cross-examination, in course of the proceedings. And this was done in fact by the American prosecution on May 7th 1946, and the said prosecution has submitted an affidavit of the witness, Emil Puhl, the vice-president of the Reichsbank, which at first seemed to charge heavily the defendant Funk.
Now it is remarkable that since the beginning of this trial the defendant Funk always actually referred to this witness Puhl for various points, and that he several times asked for his hearing since December 1945.
Measured by ordinary human standards, Funk wouldnot have done so if he had had a bad conscience and If he must have reckoned with the possibility of his being accused in the most serious way by his own witness in the matter of those concentration camp stories. But the oral examination of the witness Emil Puhl at this tribunal showed beyond doubt that Puhl could net uphold at all the originally incriminating statements of his affidavit, as far as the personality of Funk and his knowledge of the particulars of the deposits of the SS were concerned. (of. on this point the rectification of hisstatement in the declaration of the defense counsel to the tribunal of June 17th, 1946) had been asked at the time, occasionally by the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler whether articles of value could be deposited in the strong rooms of the Reichsbank, which had been seized by the SS in the Eastern territories.
This question of Himmler's was at that time confirmed by Funk who also told Himmler that he should delegate somebody in order to discuss the matter with Vicepresident Puhl and settle it.
Himmler at that time declared that Gruppenfuehrer Puhl could do this and that the latter would get in touch with Vicepresident Puhl. That was all that Funk, at that time, I believe 1942, had disussed with Reich Loader SS Himmler and occasionally he also mentioned this to his Vicepresident Puhl because Puhl was actually directing the business of the Reichs Bank and therefore was competent with this affair. this question of Reich Leader SS Himmler because, as far as Funk knew the SS was at that time in charge of the entire police service in the occupied territories in the East. For that reason it often had to confiscate valuables just as the ordinary police had done in the home country, that is,, within Germany. Moreover, all gold coins, foreign currency, etc. in the occupied territories of the East had to be turned in according to the law and these deliveries in the East Territories were naturally made to the SS because no other state offices there wore equipped for that purpose. Funk also knew that the concentration camps were under the direction of the SS and thought that the valuables the SS were to deposit with the Reichsbank for safe-keeping belonged very probably to that category of valuables which the whole population wasobliged to deliver. this trial, the SS always participated in the combats, just as the German army as the latter the SS had collected the so-called booty in the abandoned and destroyed towns of the cast and had delivered it to the Reich. Therefore there was nothing extraordinary for Funk in the fact that the SS possessed gold and foreign currency and turned it in in a regular way. that there were, among the objects delivered by the SS, gold frames of spectacles, gold teeth and similar objects in extraordinary quantities which did not fall into the hands of the SS by means of legal confiscations but only by criminal acts.
If, and I emphasize, gentlemen, if it couldbe proven that defendant Funk saw such objects in the deposit of the SS these objects should naturally have roused his suspicion.
But we heard from the witness Puhl in all certainty that defendant Funk had no knowledge of this. Yes, also that the Vice President himself did not know any particulars about it. In any case Funk never saw what particular gold objects and what quantities were delivered on the part of the SS. vaults of the Berlin Reichsbank and one felt entitled to the conclusion therefrom that he could not have helped seeing what objects had been delivered by the SS. This conclusion is obviously wrong, because the evidence shows that during the entire war Funk went to the vaults of the Reichsbank only very few times in order to show those vaults and the bullion of the Reichs Bank stored therein to visitors, especially to foreign guests. But during those few visits he never saw the deposit of the SS. He never observed what in particular the SS had deposited in his bank. This is established without doubt, not only by the deposition of the defendant Funk himself, but also by the testimony of Vice-President Puhl and the Councillor of the Reichs Bank Thomas here in this courtroom. This, certainly unsuspecting prosecution witness who offered himself as a witness declared under oath that the valuables were delivered by the SS in locked trunks, boxes and bags and were stored in these containers and that Funk was never present in the vaults when the contents of an individual box or trunk were sorted out by the employees of the bank. The witness, Thomas, who supervised the vaults, never saw defendant Funk there. Therefore, Funk neither had knowledge of the amount that the deliveries of the SS gradually had formed, nor did he know that the deposit contained jewelry, pearls and precious stones and spectacle frames and gold teeth. All that he never saw, and none of his officials ever reported to him about these things. of the Reichsbank, surely must have known what was kept in the vaults of his banks but also this conclusion is evidently false and does not take into consideration the actual conditions in a central bank of issue. Funk, who besides was Reich Minister for the Economy, had in his position of a President of the Reichsbank, no occasion whatever to look after a single deposit, even if it happened to belong to the SS.
As a president of the Reichsbank he did not look after any deposits of other clients of his bank as this was not his task. He only once, owing to an inquiry of his Vice President Puhl, asked Reich Fuehrer SS Himmler, and that was the second conversation he had with him, whether the values deposited by the SS at the Reichs Bank could be realized, i.e., in the legal course of business at the Reich Bank. Himmler answered in the positive and Funk passed this answer on to his Vice President, Puhl. that is to say, of such values which quite generally in the German Reich had to be turned in to the Reichsbank and which were and had to be realized by the latter. Never did the idea occur to Funk that the deposit contained gold-teeth or similar objects originating from criminal actions in concentration camps. He heard of this with great horror, but during the trial. way suspect, or seemed to remain suspect, was the question of secrecy. Vice President Puhl as a witness declared in the beginning that the defendant, Funk, had told him the matter of the deposits of the SS should be kept strictly secret. Funk, on the other hand, always denied this very decidedly and declared under oath that he never talked with Puhl about such secrecy at all. Now, at first sight, one statementwas pitted against the other,-- Vice President Puhl's statements referring to this point seemed slightly contradictory from the beginning, because at one time he said that this secrecy had not been anything extraordinary, because, after all, secrecy applies to every thing that occurs in a bank. Answering a special question Puhl stated repeatedly that he didnot notice whether allegedly the defendant Funk had spoken of secrecy. read and pointed out to the witness, Puhl, Puhl finally stated upon oath on 15 May 1946, that it was clearly evident therefrom, that the desire for secrecy emanated from the SS. The SS made a point of having this business transacted with secrecy. The SS, as Puhl said, "had been the originator of the obligation for secrecy." Thus reads theliteral wording of the end of the statement of the witnessPuhl to which he swore and at the con-clusion of which he again confirmed that the obligation for secrecy was desired and imposed by the SS.
point between the statementsofthe defendant Funk and those of the witness Puhl was altogether accounted for and that in favor of the defendant, Puhl himself no longer maintained his original assertion that it was Funk who had ordered the maintenance of secrecy with regard to the SS deposit. Thus we must assume that the statement--also in this statement the statement of the defendant Funk is correct also in this point, and deserves preference for he had declared from the very beginning and under oath that he himself knew nothing of a secrecy and that he had never spoken of such a secrecy to Puhl. Moreover there was no reason for Funk to yalk to Puhl about a special secrecy since Funk ostensibly was of the opinion that the valuables involved were of such nature as made their confiscation and turning in mandatory and which belonged within the regular lawful business sphere of the Reichcbank, regardless of whether these articles subject to confiscation were the property of an inmate of a concentration camp or of a free person.
SS on their part stressed the maintainance of Secrecy towards Vice President Puhl and why, furthermore, the SS opened a deposit in the name of Melmer instead of in the name of the SS, and the prosecution on their part did not attach any importance to clarifying this point. At any rate, the demand of the SS for secrecy evidently did not strike Vice President Puhl as unusual, just as little as it did the witness Thoms, who confirmed the fact that this secrecy was nothing unusual. One fact however, Gentlemen, remains significant, namely, that before the numerous personnel of the Reichsbank was entrusted by Vice president Puhl with sorting the turned in valuables and their conversion into money at the pawn shop. Dozens of Reichsbank officials who regularly entered the vaults were in a position to see the individual articles there. The Reich Central Pay-Office (Reichshauptkasse) a separate institution, quite openly settled accounts for the conversion of valuables into money with the Reich Ministry of Finance in a regular routine manner. Funk, still today, does not know whether and to what extent agreements for settling account; with the Reich had been reached between the Finance Minister and SS Reichsfuehrer Himmler. He was never interested in it nor did it concern him. that Funk, personally, did not know of these matters and that Vice President Puhl and Reichsbank Counsellor Thoms thought nothing bad about them even though at least Thoms should have seen of what nature the deposits were. obvious question, whether the initial statements of Puhl with re gard to the deposits of the SS were not from the beginning to be received with a certain skepticism, as he, Puhl, ostensibly had the understandable desire, at least in his written affidavit, to shift responsibility upon the shoulders of his President Punk, in order to escape his own responsibility for the unpleasant facts of the case, when during his detention he was told that the gold objects of the SS consisted for the greater part of spectacle francs and gold teeth taken away from victims of concentration camps.
Originally, not even Puhl seems to have thought bad about the whole matter. For him the matter was an ordinary business transaction of the Reichsbank for the account of the Reich, which he dealt with in the same manner as he dealt with objects of gold and foreign currency that had been seized by the Customs Investigation Office or the Office of Control for foreign Currency or any other State authority. Gentlemen, whatever is the opinion of the responsibility of Vice-President Puhl, all these cases lie outside any jurisdiction of the defendant Funk, and he is the one with whom we have to deal in considering this point now. In the course of the following period Funk had only two or three short and accidental conversations with Puhl regarding these gold deposits, with a view of using the turned in gold coins and foreign currency. Otherwise Funk did not concern himself at all with the matter. He know even loss about it than Puhl, and it is not without significance that Puhl here upon oath decal red that he (Puhl) would never have permitted those objects of gold required by the SS to be brought to the vaulte of the Reichsbank, had he had the slightest notion of the fact that they were token from victims of concentration camps under criminal circumstances. If Puhl could not know or guess this, then Funk could have known even loss about it, and the initial statement of Puhl, which, in effect, said that the objects of gold were accepted by FunK for the Reichsbank intentionally and that they were made use of with the aid of the personnel of the Reichsbank, was at least a statement by Vice President Puhl grossly misleading the prosecution, Puhl, later on in captivity, when he learned of the true connections, must surely have had the same compunctions as Funk, however 15 July M LJG 3-3 innocent the latter was in the case.
Puhl, in the end, stated upon oath here that even he would not have stood for such transactions and he would have brought the matter to the attention of the cirectorate of the Reichsbank as well as to the attention of President Funk had he known that the valuables were taken from victims of concentration camps and if he had been informed about the nature of these valuables.
I therefore come to the following conclusion: Certainly the Reichsbank transacted business for the account of the Reich, the nature of which originated from criminal acts of the SS; the defendant Funk, however, know nothing of this. He would not have tolerated such transactions had he known the true circumstances. Therefore, he cannot be made legally responsible for this. credits of the Reichsbank for business agencies of the SS, and I shall limit myself to a few sentences on this. The witness Puhl, in his written affidavit of 3 May 1946, first gave an entirely wrong picture also of this matter: For he stated that credits of 10 to 12 million Reichsmark placed at the disposal of the Gold-discountbank upon instruction of the defendant Funk were used and I quote. "for financing production in SS factories by means of labour of concentration camps." whether Funk had any knowledge as to whether persons from concentration camps were engaged in those factories at all. Thereat, Puhl declared literally: " I am inclined to assume this, but I am unable to know it." Therefore, he was not able to give any definite evidence concerning Funk's knowledge, only an assumption. However, Funk's own statement in this matter is quite clear and convincing; it amounted to this, that he know, indeed, of the credit request of the SS, that he even granted it, but that he know nothing about the nature of the SS enterprises concerned and about the people working therein. Funk stated this on his oath.
This credit deal, which by the way occurred about two years before 15 July M LJG 3-4 the matter of the SS gold deposit, that is about 1940, accordingly charges neither the defendant Funk nor the witness Puhl; neither of then know at that time - 1940 - anything about the conditions in the concentration camps; both rather learned about them only much later, viz, in the course of this trial, and the defendant Funk never know that persons from the concentration camps were working in the SS factories mentioned and for which the credit is given.
tion whether Funk over visited a concentration camp. The witness Dr. Blaha, who was examined here, stated that once Funk was in Dachau in the first half of 1944. This visit was stated to have been made as a sequel to a conference of the minister of finance in Berchtesgaden or in same other place of this region, and in which Funk participated. But, Gentlemen, the witness Dr. Blaha himself did not at that time see the defendant Funk in Dachau, but only heard from other camp inmates that on the occasion of an important visit to the camp, the Reich 15 July M LJG 4-1 Minister of the Economy Funk, the, had been present.
He would not have known him either. From the beginning. Funk energetically contested this. He stated this on his oath, and the affidavit made by his permanent companion Dr. Schwedler, contained in Document Book Funk 13 and submitted to you, clearly proves that Funk never was in a concentration camp; Dr. Schwedler is in a position to know this, as he had at that time been the permanent companion of the defendant and had from day to day known where Funk stayed. In fact, Funk never was a minister of finance, and never took part in a conference of ministers of finance. Accordingly it is beyond any doubt that what the witness Dr. Blaha was able to tell here purely from hearsay is based on false information or on a confusion with another visitor, and that could all the more have been the case because Funk was rather unknown to the public. The result, therefore, is: Funk never visited a concentration camp and never came to know the conditions existing therein. assert that he did not know anything at all about the existence of such concentration camps. Just as almost any German, Funk knew, of course, that there were concentration camps in Germany after 1933, just as he know that there were penitentiaries, prisons and other penal institutions in Germany. here, was the very large number of such concentration camps and of their inmates, amounting to hundreds of thousands, oven millions, unknown,to him were also the countless atrocities committed in those camps, atrocities made known only in this trial. In Particular, Funk only heard during this trial that there were even extermination camps which served to murder millions of Jews. Funk had no knowledge of this; he stated it on his oath and it appears quite credible, as one of the most important results of this trial consists in the evidence that the German people, on the whole, did not know about the conditions in the concentration camps and about their immense number, but that, on the contrary those con ditions were hold secret in such a cunning and cruel way that 15 July M LJG 4-2 even the highest officials of the Reich up to the so-called ministers, did not learn anything about them.
part of the indictment which, had it been true, would have imputed the man Funk in the most serious and terrible way. One may think as are pleases about acts of violence during a political and economic struggle, especially in stormy revolutionary periods; according to the opinion of the defendant Funk, there cannot be any disment of view on one point, that is concerning the atrecities in concentration camp and how they were committed for years, especially against the Jewish population. Anyone who participated in such unheard of atrocities, should atone for it in the most rigerous way, according to the opinion of the entire German people. expressed here on May 6th, 1946, answering the American prosecutor, that as a man and as a German he was feeling aheavy guilt and a deep shame for what Germans perpetrated on millions of wretched people. ation of the Funk case as far as criminal law is concerned, and that only is the task of the defense in this trial, to examine the evidence in the case Funk. ant, has brought proof that criminal guilt on on his part does not exist, and that with a clear conscience he can ask and expect to he acquitted, because crimes have never been committed by him at any time during his life. defendant Funk too, a sentence which does not make him atone for other people's guilt, a guilt which he could not prevent, which he did not even know, but which only establishes the degree of his own guilt, not his political guilt, but his criminal guilt, which alone is the subject of those proceedings; a sentence which is valid not only for today but which will be recognized as just 15 July M LJG 4-3 also in the future, at a time when we shall have gained the necessary temporal distance to these terrible events and shall be considering these things Without passion, like happenings of a remote historical period; a sentence, gentlemen of the Tribunal, which not only gives satisfaction to the nations Which you are representing, but which will be perceived as just and wise by the German people as a whole; a sentence which does not only destroy and take revenge and sow hate for the future, but which makes possible and facilitates the re-ascending of the German people towards a happier future of human dignity and of charity, of equality and of peace.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, will you or Sir David deal with this. Sir David, I have got a document drawn up by the General Secretary which shows in the first place, in the case of the defendant Goering, that there are four interrogatories which have been Submitted, and to which the Prosecution has not objected. Is that right?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: That is so, my Lord, so there is no further comment with regard to that first application.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Then, with reference to the defendant Ribbentrop, there are two affidavits to which there is no objection, and there are three further affidavits which have not been received, I understand.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: That is so, my Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: And one document to which the defendant's counsol wants to refer in its entirety, namely TC-75, is that right?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, my Lord, that is so. There is no objection to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps I had better go on to the end of the documents and then call upon Dr. Horn for what he has to say about these three, because as far as I can see there are only these three documents and an affidavit for Seyss-Inquart from a man called Erwin Schetter and another from a man called Jopisch which haven't yet been received, -
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: That is so, my Lord.
15 July M LJG 4-4
THE PRESIDENT: -- and three letters from Seyss-Inquart to Himmler which haven't yet been produced.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: That is so, my Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Also, in the case of Fritsche there are two interrogatories of Delmar and Feldscher which haven't yet been received.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, with regard to the three letters of the defendant Seyss-Inquart, they have been received but they have not yet been translated into French, and I think, my Lord, the simplest way would be if the Tribunal took it that provisionally there is no objection but that the French delegation reserve that right to make any objection if, upon, receiving the translation, they find there is any objection to make.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, the French delegation will let the Tribunal know if they find there is any objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Now, with reference to the rest, so far as the Prosecution are concerned, what are the objections if any?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My lord, I think the only objection there is with regard to the application of Dr. Servatius for the defendant Sauckel. Your Lordship sees that after the interrogatories granted by the Tribunal, there are certain documents which were introduced on the third of July by the defendant Sauckel to be considered by the Tribunal, and then there are a number which are lettered "A" be "I". The Prosecution suggests that these documents are cumulative of the large number of documents already introduced on behalf of this defendant, and, my Lord -
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing) Just one minute, Sir David. Those documents "A" to "I" -
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, my Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: -- were they applied for after the case had been closed?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: They were submitted on the third of July, sir. That would be after the case had been closed.
THE PRESIDENT: But that was at the time, wasn't it, when we 15 July M LJG 4-5 were asking for supplementals?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, at the very end.
THE PRESIDENT: That very day?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes. My Lord, I am sorry, but the case was not technically closed, for that day was open for any defendant to put in.
THE PRESIDENT: Are these documents to which you have just been referring all in the document book already?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Dr. Servatius tells me they are.
SIR DAVID MAXWELLFYFE: My Lord, I have just been having a word with Dr. Servatius and he says that the one to which he attaches the greatest importance is "A", the decree by the defendant Sauckel as to return transportation of sick foreign workers.
My Lord, I am quite prepared on thatassurance by Dr. Servatius not to make any objection to number "A" and Dr. Servatius, on the other hand, says that he does not press for the others. behalf of the defendant Sauckel for a document. It is an affidavit by the defendant, dated the 29 June, 1946. The Prosecution have no objection to the application. Sauckel, is with regard to an affidavit from a witness called Walkenherst. my Lord, that again, the Prosecution submits, is cumulative.
THE PRESIDENT: You say Falkenherst?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Walkenherst, sir, My Lord, it is the very last application on my list.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, concerning the witness Walkenherst, may I make a statement? The witness had been called for Bormann and I did not insist on questioning that witness and with the permission of the Tribunal and with your approval, I have submitted this affidavit. Since it was approved, I did not insist on questioning the witness. I assume that will be confirmed by the Prosecution also.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean, Dr. Servatius, that the affidavit from Walkenherst had already been granted before?
DR. SERVATIUS: I assume it had been granted at that time. The witness was standing outside, waiting outside and I was asked whether I would like to question the witness. Thereupon I said I have an affidavit which concerns one particular point, is limited to that one particular point and it would be sufficient if I could submit the affidavit. He was the last witness who was supposed to be heard at the one of the rest of the evidence.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I do not insist in the opposition under these circumstances.
THE PRESIDENT: What about those two affidavits asked for by Dr. Steinbauer from Erwin Schotter and Adolf Jopisch?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FIFE: My Lord, we have not got these yet. As I understand it, theyhave been admitted by the tribunal, subject to any objection and I am afraid we cannot tell until we have seen them.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. Then, for the rest you have no other objections?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FIFE: No other objections.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, we have just had another document placed before us which contains an application on behalf of the defendant Sauckel to call as a witness his sonFrederick Sauckel. The Prosecution has objected to that on the ground of irrelevance and cumulativeness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:A Yes, My Lord, that is the position. the evidence of the defendant's son would contribute anything fresh.
THE PRESIDENT: And that application was made after the 3rd of July? No, I see that is wrong. It was before that it was submitted but it was not mentioned on the 3rd of July.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, it was an application to bring the witness here from England because presumably he could give information as to a number of things. I have not made a formal application yet. It was just a request to have him brought from England to Nurnberg for the purpose of obtaining information and to see whether he would be able to give information, such as he indicated.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FIFE: My Lord, I would not make objection to the defedant's son being brought here for the purpose of Dr. Servatius having a talk with him and seeing whether he can contribute anything.
THE PRESIDENT: The difficultythat these sort of applications put the Tribunal in is that the case never closes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FIFE: Yes, my Lord, I quite agree.
DR. SERVATIUS: I did not know before this that the witness was in England. He was a prisoner and there was no news from him, no information about him until very recently.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, Sir David, do we have an affidavit from the defendant Sauckel himself which you have already dealt with?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, my Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Then there is an affidavit by the defendant Jodl on behalf of Kaltenbrunner, the application having been received at the general secretary's office on the 5 July.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, my Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: That was after the last date when the defendants counsel were asked for their applications.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Well, my Lord, I am afraid I have not been able to collect the views of the Prosecution on that point.
My Lord, the substance of that affidavit was contained in Dr. Kauffmann's speech, I do not think it really has any materiality, I mean that there is any real -- that there can be any objection to the affidavit because I am almost positive I remember this passage occurring or an equivalent passage, giving the defendant Jodl's views on Kaltenbrunner in Dr. Kauffmann's speech. My Lord, therefore, I do not think we should occupy time discussing it and therefore I think we should let the affidavit go in.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. document entitled "Tradition in Present Times". That has been objected to as cumulative.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, my Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, are you wanting to say anything in support of that application or is it sufficiently covered by your speech?
DR. THOMA (Counsel for defendant Rosenberg): I am of the opinion that that is included and has been sufficiently dealt with in my speech.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, Dr. Horn, there are twoaffidavits, one from Ribbentrop and one from Schulze not yet put in. Do you want them?
DR. HORN: (Counsel for defendant Ribbentrop): Mr. President, concerning the affidavit Schulze, there must be some mistake. I have not submitted an affidavit of Schulze or made any application.
THE PRESIDENT: It was a mistake. already dealt with that?
DR. HORN: No, I am asking that I be permitted to put the affidavit of Ribbentrop in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Why do you desire the defendant Ribbentrop make an affidavit? He has given his evidence in full. Is it something that has arisen since?
DR. HORN: In the affidavit Ribbentrop he mentioned several documents which were submitted to him during the cross-examination and he only had an opportunity to speak very briefly about them. I do not want to extend my final speech by treating with all these documents and therefore, I have submitted this affidavit and I have asked the tribunal to kindly approve it.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, with regard to TC-75 -
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, that is one of our original British documents. I have no objection to Dr. Horn using it.
THE PRESIDENT: How about the translation, though? I suppose it is a German document, is it not?
DR. HORN: Yes, it is a German document which was only translated in part and I refer to the entire document, the entire contents thereof, in my plea.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it a very long document or not?
DR. HORN: No, it has only nine pages, Mr. President. The Prosecution submitted one page of the document in evidence. I found out later that the document exists in two copies. I then took the second copy, which represents the complete document and submitted it to the Tribunal and have had it translated.
THE PRESIDENT: It has been translated?
DR. HORN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well then, that is all right then.
Now, Dr. Steinbauer, what about these two affidavits that you are asking for, one from Erin Schotter and the other, Jopisch?
Dr. STEINBAUER (Counsel for defendant Seyss-Inquart): I have submitted the two documents for translation and since the translating division is very busy I have not received the translation yet. But I should like to submit the two originals to theTribunal under the numbers already given, 112 and 113 -- Seyss-Inquart 112 and 113.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the Prosecution seen the substance of the affidavits or not?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: No, My Lord, we have not.
My Lord, they are very short affidavits. I will ask someone to read them in German through the day and let the Tribunal knowbefore the Tribunal rises tonight.
THE PRESIDENT: Was the application made before 3 July or when was it made?
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, on the 3 July I had received these two documents through the general secretary and presented them on the same day.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the matter then and they will be glad to hear from the Prosecution if they have any objection.
DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, may I present one more document on this occasion?
The Tribunal had approved the interrogation of Dr. Reuter and the day before yesterday I received the answer.
THE PRESIDENT: What was it you were saying Dr. Steinbauer?
DR. STEINBAUER: That I received the document, the interrogatory of the witness Dr. Reuter, which I received last Saturday. It has been approved. I received it in German and in English and I should like to submit the original to the Tribunal under Seyss-Inquart 114.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the name of the person who was interrogated?
DR. STEINBAUER: Dr. Reuter. He was questioned about the sanitary and health conditions in the Motherlands. The Tribunal has definitely approved that interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that will be considered, then.
DR. STEINBAUER: Then I submit it in evidence under number SeyssInquart 114.