THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
GENERAL ZORYA: This note states that the Soviet citizens deported from the territories occupied by the Germans offered armed resistance to their slave-drivers, and that in the Baltic, Ukraine, the Byelo-Russian districts many reports came in regarding the mass flight of inhabitants of partisan troops. The increase on the part of the movement as relative to these measures was pressed with anguish by many German commandos. had escaped German slavery. I will only quote one of these.
Varvara Bakhtina of the village of Nikolayevka, stated:
"In Kursk we were driven into a cattle truck. We were not allowed to leave. The German sentinels beat us ceaselessly. In the town were subjected to a medical examination. The soldiers forced us to undress. The nearer we came to Germany the emptier became our train. At every station we had to throw out ill or dyingpeople. In Germany we were shut up into a camp with Soviet prisoners of war. There was a clearing in the wood which was surrounded by barbed wire. Four days later we were detailed. I, together with the other girls, were sent to a war factory." that of the Soviet workers in German slavery. This part of the statement also mentions the statement of Goering. Goering states that the Soviet person is not very spoiled and therefore it is easy to feed him and to satisfy his needs. It also mentioned a number of letters sent to Soviet soldiers at the front. I will quote only one of these letters. On the body of Wilhelm Bock, a dead Soviet soldier, we find a letter to his mother:
"Many Russian women and girls are working at the 'Astra Werke' factories. They are compelled to work 14 and more hours a day. Of course they receive no pay whatever They go to and from the factory under escort. The Russians are so exhausted that they literally drop to the ground. The guards of ten whip them. They have no right to complain about the bad food or ill treatment.
The other day my neighbor obtained a servant. She paid some money at the office. She was given opportunity to choose any woman she pleased froma number who had recently been driven here from Russia." states that it places responsibility for atrocities in this domain on the leading Hitlerite officials and the High Command of the German Army.
"The Soviet Government also considers res ponsible for these crimes all Hitlerite officials who are engaged in recruiting, abducting, maintaining in camps, selling into slavery, and inhuman exploiting of Soviet civilians who have been forcibly transported from their native land to Germany. Inview of the above, the Soviet Government holds that stern responsibility, equalto that of the chiefs of Hitlerite Germany, should be borne by such already exposed criminals as the General Plenipotentiary for the Utilizationof Manpower, Gauleiter Fritz Sauckel, as well as the principal inspirer of the Nazi slave driving, Alfred Rosenberg, who is Reichsminister for the Eastern Occupied Territory.
"The Soviet Government expresses the conviction that all the governments concerned are unanimous on the point that the Hitler government and its agents must bear full responsibility and receive stern punishment for the monstrous crimes they have committed, for the privation and suffering they have inflicted upon millions of civilians who have been forcibly transported to German Fascist slavery."
This is the end of Commissar Molotov's note, and allow me to close my statement with these words.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 23 February, 1946, at 1000 hours.)
THE PRESIDENT: Before we deal with the applications, I am going to read the Tribunal's Order upon Dr. Stahmer's motion of 4 February 1946 and the Prosecution's motion of the 11th of February 1946. This is the Order: Prosecution's motion as to the evidence of the Defendant, dated the 11th of February 1946.
With regard to paragraphs 2 and 7 of Dr. Stahmer's memorandum on the procedure, dated the 4th of February, 1946, the Tribunal makes the following Order:
1. The Defendants' cases will be heard in the order in which the Defendants' names appear in the Indictment.
2. (a) During the presentation of a Defendant's case, Defendant's Counsel will read documents, will question witnesses, and will make such brief comments on the evidence as are necessary to insure a proper understanding of it.
(b) The Defendant's Counsel may be assisted in the courtroom by his associate counsel or by another Defendant's counsel. Such other counsel may help the Defendant's counsel in handling documents, etc., but shall not address the Tribunal or examine witnesses.
3. Documentary Evidence. (a) Defendants' Counsel will hand to the General Secretary the original of any document which he offers in evidence if the original is in his possession. If the original is in the possession of the Prosecution Counsel will request the Prosecution to make the original of the document available for introduction into evidence. If the Prosecution declines to make the original available, the matter shall be referred to the Tribunal.
(b) Should the original of any such document be in the possession of the Tribunal, Defendants' Counsel will hand to the General Secretary a copy of the whole or relevant part of such document, together with a statement of the document number and the date upon which it was received in evidence.
(c) Should counsel wish to offer in evidence a document, the original of which is not in his possession or otherwise available to the Tribunal, he will hand to the General Secretary a copy of the whole or relevant part of such document, together with an explanation as to where and in whose possession the original is located and the reason why it cannot be produced. Such copy shall be certified as being correct by an appropriate certificate.
4. Each Defendant's Counsel will compile copies of the documents or parts of documents which he intends to offer in evidence into a document book, and six copies of such document book will be submitted to the General Secretary two weeks, if possible, before the date on which the presentation of the Defendant's case is likely to begin. The General Secretary will arrange for the translation of the document book into the English, French, and Russian languages, and the Defendant's Counsel will be entitled to receive one copy of each of these translations.
5. (a) Defendants' Counsel will request the General Secretary to have the witnesses named by him and approved by the Tribunal available in Nurnberg, such request being made, if possible, at least three weeks before the date on which the presentation of a Defendant's case is likely to begin. The General Secretary will, as far as possible, have the witnesses brought to Nurnberg one week before this date.
(b) Defendants' Counsel will notify the General not later than noon on the day before he wishes to call each witness.
6.(a) A Defendant why does not wish to testify cannot be compelled to do so, but may be interrogated by the Tribunal at any time under Article 17B and 24F of the Charter.
(b) A Defendant can only testify once.
(c) A Defendant who wishes to testify on his own behalf shall do so during the presentation of his own defense. The right of Defense Counsel and of the Prosecution under Article 24G of the Charter, to interrogate and cross examine a Defendant who gives testimony, shall be exercised at that time (d) A Defendant who does not wish to testify on his own behalf but who is willing to testify on behalf of a co-defendant may do so during the presentation of the case of the co-defendant.
Counsel for other co-defendants and for the Prosecution shall examine and cross examine him when he has concluded his testimony on behalf of the co-defendant.
(e) Subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) do not limit the power of the Tribunal to allow a Defendant to be recalled for further testimony in exceptional cases, if in the opinion of the Tribunal the interest of justice so requires.
7. In addition to the addresses of each Defendant's Counsel under Article 24H, one counsel representing all the Defendant will be permitted to address the Tribunal on legal issues arising out of the Indictment and the Charter which are common to all Defendants, but im making such address he will be held to strict compliance with Article 3 of the Charter. This address will take place at the conclusion of the presentation of all the evidence on behalf of the Defendants, but must not last more than half a day. If possible, a copy of the written text of the address shall be delivered to the General Secretary in time to eanble him to have translations made in the English, French, and Russian languages.
8. In exercising his right to make a statement to the Tribunal under Article 24J, a Defendant may rot repeat matters which already have been the subject of evidence or have already been dealt with by his counsel when addressing the Court under Article 24H, but will be limited to dealing with such additional matters as he may consider necessary before the judgment of the Tribunal is delivered and sentence pronounced.
9. The procedure prescribed by this Order may be altered by the Tribunal at any time if it appears to the Tribunal necessary in the interest of justice. ments on behalf of the Defendant Goering, and the procedure which the Tribunal proposes to adopt is to ask Counsel for the Defendant whose case is being dealt with to deal, in the first instance, with his first witness, and then to ask Counsel for the Prosecution to reply upon that witness. Then, when that has been done, to ask Defendant's Counsel to deal with his second application for a witness, and then for the Prosecution Counsel to deal with that witness; that is to say, to hear the Defendant's Counsel and the Prosecution Counsel upon each witness in turn.
to deal with documents. Probably it will be more convenient for Defendant's Counsel to deal with the documents together and prosecuting counsel to deal in answer to the documents together. But, so far as the witnesses are concerned, each will be taken in turn.
I call upon Dr. Stahmer.
DR. HORN (Counsel for Defendant Ribbentrop): Before we go into detail, I ask to be informed why the Court has the intention to treat the Defense different that the Prosecution. In principle, Article 24 of the Charter says that the Tribunal may ask the Defense and the Prosecution what means of proof they will submit to the Tribunal. This decision has so far, from the part of the Tribunal, not been used with the Prosecution. Today the Defense has received the possibility to submit to the trial a list of documents and witnesses, which it was difficult so far to aquire.
it necessary to call witnesses and present documents. I ask the Court, however, on the basis of past practice, not to ask the Prosecution to judge whether a document should be considered essential and relevant or not. As Defendant's Counsel I am convinced that that would mean a sort of precensorship by the Prosecution which would impair the presentation of my entire proof. I may, therefore, point out that currently the protests of the Defense have been rebuffed with the remark that the Defense at a later date would be heard about these points. If today, however, here, the pre selection of proof, of evidence, on the basis of protests of the Prosecution will be made, that brings with it the danger that such protests which have not been accepted before could not be treated later. proceed likewise, without giving the right to the Prosecution to protest about the admission of matter of proof.
THE PRESIDENT: Will counsel for Ribbentrop come back to the rostrum?
DR. HORN: I make the motion that the prosecution whould not, at this stage of the trial, receive any possibility to decide about the calling of witnesses or the relevancy of documents.
Mr. President, I want to make it more precise. I want to say that as to the final decision, the prosecution right now should not have anything to say about the question of the admission or non-admission of a matter of proof.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal considers that your motion cannot be granted, for this reason. It is true that the defense are being asked to apply for witnesses and documents now, in accordance with Article 24-D. One principal reason for that is that the Tribunal has got to bring all your witnesses here. The Tribunal has been, for many weeks, attempting to find your witnesses and to produce them here, and to produce the documents which you want. The relevance of these witnesses and of those documents has got to be decided by the Tribunal; but it is obvious that counsel for the prosecution must be allowed to argue upon the question of relevancy, just as counsel or the defendants have been allowed to argue upon the relevance of every witness and every document which has been introduced by the prosecution. been adopted for the prosecution, with the sole exception that the defendants are being asked to make applications for the witnesses and documents to deal with the matter at one time, rather than to deal with it as each witness or document is produced. The reason for that is that the Tribunal, as I have stated, have got to find and bring the witnesses here for the defendants, and also to produce the documents. decide on the calling of witnesses. The prosecution, of course, will not decide upon it; the Tribunal will decide upon it. The prosecution must have the right to argue upon its to argue that the evidence of a certain witness is irrelevant or cumulative, and to argue that any document is not relevant. for the purposes of the Tribunal.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, many of the defendants' counsel, myself included, have, so far, not been able to question decisive witnesses for reasons of information. We know, therefore, that in decisive points we cannot even say what a witness will be able to proce. how far it is desirable to fight for a witness, we are in a much worse situation that the prosecution, which, after all, whenever the defendants' counsel made not protests, knew exactly for what the witness or the evidence was essential. am of the opinion that this fact will become even worse if here, besides the Tribunal, the prosecution also, at this Stage of the trial, can make protests against the material of evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: It is true that it is impossible to decide finally upon the admissibility of any piece of Evidence until the actual question is asked; and for that reason the Tribunal has already, in deciding provisionally upon the application for witnesses, acted in the most liberal way. If it appears that there is any possible relevancy in the evidence to be given by a witness, they have allowed that witness to be alerted. Therefore, if there is any witness whose evidence appears to be, by any possibility, relevant, the Tribunal will allow that witness, subject, of course, to the directions of the Charter to hold the trial expeditiously. called whose evidence appears to be possibly relevant, That is all the Tribunal can do because, as I have already stated, it is the Tribunal who has to undertake the difficult task of securing these witnesses for the defendants, who can't secure them themselves.
DR. HORN: Thank you, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Stahmer.
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, I would not like to repeat, but I believe that the objection of Dr. Horn has not been understood.
Dr. Horn wanted only to complain about the fact that the defense in no case has been asked previously whether a matter of proof that the prosecution has presented was a relevant or not, but we have always been surprised when a witness was brought in and we had no possibility to say anything or make any factual objections.
considering their relevance -- the defense has always been told that for such an objection the time had not yet come for the defense.
THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon, Dr. Stahmer, but you misunderstood. The defense have never been told that objections to the admissibility of documents could be left over until later. Every objection to the admissibility of a document has been dealt with at the time. Observations upon the weight of the document are to be dealt with now, during the course of the defense. I don't mean today, but during the course of the defense. and the weight of a document, and all questions of admissibility have been dealt with.
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, I understand that distinction. I only wanted to say that the objections against admissibility were not admitted -- I didn't want to say that, but rather the question of objection against the relevancy.
THE PRESIDENT: Objections to the relevancy of documents -- that is to say, their admissibility -- that is the governing consideration under this Charter as to the admissibility of documents. If they are relevant, they are admissible. That is what the Charter says. And any objection which has been made to documents or to evidence by defendants' counsel has been heard by the Tribunal and has been decided at the time.
Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal wishes me to point out to defendants' counsel that they have had long notice of this form of procedure, long notice that under Article 24-D they were going to be called upon to specify or name their witnesses and the documents which they wish to produce, and to state what the relevance of the witnesses and the documents would be.
when one remembers that it is, Top the Tribunal, a very great difficult and considerable expense to find these witnesses and to bring them to Nurnberg; and to find the documents, if possible, and to bring them to Nurnberg.
Now , as to Dr. Horn's objections to the procedure which has been adopted which reference to the prosecution, it is open to defendant's counsel at any time, if they wish to do so, to apply to strike from the record any document which they think ought not to have been admitted. One of his objections, or possibly your objection, appears to be that defendant's counsel have not had sufficient time to consider whether a particular document or a particular witness was relevant, and therefore admissible. You have had ample time to consider the point and if now you wish to apply to strike out any document or to strike out any evidence, you will make that application in writing and the Tribunal will consider it.
As I have said, the object of the procedure is to help the defendant's and their counsel, And it is a necessary procedure because the defendant's are unable, naturally, and defendant's counsel are unable, naturally, to procure the attendance of witnesses here in Nurnberg, and in some cases to procure the production of documents. should know whom they want to have produced here, what documents they want to have produced here; and, in order that time should not be wasted and money should not be unduly wasted, it is necessary to Know whether the witnesses and the documents have any shadow of relevancy to the issues raised.
DR. STAHMER: I will begin the naming of the witnesses with the naming of the witness whose testimoney before this Court I consider necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not desire you to read your application If you will just say in your own words, as shortly as you can, why you want the particular witness, they will then consider it. And if counsel for the prosecution wish to object, they will do so.
Then the Tribunal will finally decide the matter.
DR. STAHMER: Yes, sir, I understand. who is here in Nurnberg in the prison, has been, since 1933, First an adjutant and later a Minister; that is, Chief of the Ministeria 1 Office of Goering, He was together with Goering and, therefore, he is informed about all essentiall facts of that time. detail, are in my written statement, but especially that he took part in a conference which took place at the begginning of August 1939, at which Goering was present, together with British members of Parliament. Among them they discussed the possibility of a peaceful solution of the, at that time, already existing difficulties between Germany and Poland. At that time he had mentioned to the British members of Parliament that in no case would it come to a war, and that they should try to see to it that these difficulties could be straightened out peacefully. the years, particularly 1936 to 1939, from which statements the intention can be seen of the defendant Goering to avoid a war if possible, and he thought that the policy of the Reich should be that under no conditions should it come to a war. for the first time, heard from Hitler that Hitler had the intentions of going against Russia, of attacking Russia.
had an opportunity to know very well, particularly after 1939. witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE; May it please the Tribunal, may I say one general word about the procedure of the prosecution? these particular applications. There will be some of them, if the Tribunal pleases, on which certain of my colleagues would like to add a word as they have. special intrests in them. But in general , and on the whole I shall deal with the application for the prosecution. there is any point of relevance in a witness for whome application is made, they will not of course object. But they want to make it quite clear, so the Tribunal will understand, that they are not , by making no objections, accepting the position that every point set out in the document or mentioned by counsel is admitted to be relevant. By making no objections they are simply admitting that there is some relevant point in the matter put forward.
in the matter--the prosecution make no objection in the case of General von Bodenschatz.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer.
DR. STAHMER: I name further, as witness, the former Gauleiter, Dr. Uiberreither, who at this time is at the prison in Nurnberg. Uiberreither is to give the following information. He can give information about a speech-
THE PRESIDENT: I wish to say to Sir David that perhaps, in view of what you have said, you might be able to indicate at the opening of Dr. Stahmer's motion in respect to each witness whether the prosecution have any objection to the witness. Perhaps that would make it easier for him to deal shortly with it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May I say that we have no objection to Dr. Uiberreither, on the same basis as I mentioned.
THE PRESIDENT: I only meant that if counsel for the prosecution indicate to us that they have no objection to a particular witness, then Dr. Stahmer can deal more shortly with the witness.
DR. STAHMER: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Just inform us what the relevance of the evidence is, but do it shortly because the prosecution have got no objection.
DR. STAHMER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: In the case of this particular witness, wouldn't it be equally convenient for the defense, for the prupose of shortening things, to have this evidence taken either by an affidavit or by interrogatories?
DR. STHAMER: Regarding the witness Uiberreither, I have no question -- If I have the possibility to get a statement from the witness himself-
THE PRESIDENT: Before you pass on, you might just tell us what the substance of the evidence is.
DR. STAHMER: Uiberreither was present when Goering in the summer of 1938 spoke before the new gauleiters from Austria and in this speech dealt with the policy of the Reich and he spoke about the aims of the Four Year Plan in considerable detail. November 1938, after the pogroms against the Jews, called the Gauleiters to Berlin and there criticised those actions very severely.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then we can pass on to Number Three now.
DR. STAHMER: The witness which I name next is Lord Halifax. Referring to this witness-
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If I may indicate--the interrogatories have been served on and answered by Lord Halifax. The Prosecution has no objection to the interrogatories. Of course, they object to his being called, but we understand that the Tribunal and Dr. Stahmer agree to Lord Halifax being dealt with by means of interrogatories, and we have no objections.
DR. STAHMER: I am perfectly satisfied with the interrogatories which I have already received, so I do not insist on calling the witness personally before this Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. STAHMER: The next witness is the witness Forbes. I may say that also in this case a interrogatory was accepted, and the interrogatory, as much as I have found out, has been sent out already. I have not received an answer, however.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, we have no objection to Sir George OgilvieForbes being dealt with by interrogatories. I will do my best to see that the answer is forthcoming as soon as possible. My recollections--I wasn't able to check it--is that Sir Goerge is at a foreign capital, but I will do my best to see that the answers are brought and certainly will do everything to help on the point.
DR. STAHMER: Whether I can forego this witness, I will be able to find out when I get the interrogatory back. Itmay be in regard to some questions he has given an insufficient answer.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes or Dahlerus?
DR. STAHMERS: With Forbes.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, the interrogatories will be submitted to you as soon as they are answered.
DR. STAHMER: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: And I think the same is true of Dahlerus. Interrogatories have been granted for him.
DR. STAHMERS: I have to say on the testimony of Dahlerus the following: The testimony of this witness seems to me so important that an interrogatory could not be sufficient to give all the information, and therefore I want to call the witness so that here he could be questioned and cross examined.
If this should not be possible, I ask for theopportunity to question him personally at Stockholm.
Dr. Siemers knows Dahlerus personally, and he would like to make a statement concerning this witness.
DR. SIEMERS (Counsel for the defendant Raeder): I know Mr. Dahlerus personally for many years. Dahlerus has written to me about the fact that Dr. Stahmer intends to call him as a witness. Mr. Dahlerus in principle, agrees to come to Nurnberg if she Court considers it necessary. As soon as the Tribunal agrees, Mr. Dahlerus as far as I can see from his letter, will certainly be prepared to come to Nurnberg. witnesses who, as for instance Mr. Dahlerus, could answer questions which are of far reaching historic importance, most probably not only one defendant's Counsel will want to ask questions, the Counsel for several defendants, and, therefore, an interrogatory which has been sent only by Dr. Stahmer, in my opinion, in such a case would not be sufficient. I ask, therefore, to admit the witness also from this point of view.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the position as to the witness Dahlerus is that Dr. Stahmer has put interrogatories consisting of 62 questions. I make no complaint of that at all. I only bring it to the notice of the Tribunal to show that Dr. Stahmer has certainly covered the ground.
In addition, if the Tribunal would turn for a moment to Dr. Stahmer's application for documents, they will see that Item 26 is Dahlerus' book -if the Tribunal will pardon my Swedish, "Sista Forsoket" "The Last Attempt." That is quite a lengthy book, dealing in detail with this point, and it is desired and the Tribunal has allowed that Dr. Stahmer will use it.
In addition, the position of Mr. Dahlerus has been the subject of interrogatories to Lord Halifax, who was then the British Foreign Minister and to Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes, who was then Counsellor in Berlin, and on the main points of the matters, that Mr. Dahlerus had certain negotiations and paid certain visits, there is no dispute. interrogatories, the connected interrogatories to Lord Halifax, and Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes, and the book, and the evidence of the defendant Goering himself, and it is unnecessary to investigate this matter further as to whether Mr. Dahlerus wishes to come and can come and should come from Sweden.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, may I ask you, have the Prosecution administered cross interrogatories to Dahlerus?
SIR DAVID-MAXWELL FYFE: No.
THE PRESIDENT: There was another question. Did the defendant Raider's counsel apply to have Dahlerus as a witness?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No. The only other mention that I know of is by the defendant Ribbentrop's counsel on a limited point.
DR. HORN (Counsel for the defendant Von Ribbentrop): Before the Court makes a decision about the witness Dahlerus, I would like to say that I have asked for that witness for my client, Von Ribbentrop. The witness Dahlerus has in decisive hours before the outbreak of World War II in 1939, played an important role. The witness Dahlerus particularly can give information about the last document which contained the conditions for further negotiations with Poland, and he can make important statements. This document was the cause for the great world war. Dahlerus to come here, especially since Dr. Siemers has declared that he knows that the witness on his own initiative is ready and prepared to come here.
DR. STAHMER: May I, concerning the importance of this motion, may I still state this: I have sent an interrogatory with 62 questions; that is true, but I do not believe that these questions still include everything in the subject. It is impossible to put allthat into the interrogatory precisely what the witness knows and to bring it out in such a form that the Tribunal could have a complete picture of the important function which Dahlerus had at that time concerning Germany and England.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider that point.
DR. STAHMER: As the next witness, I have requested. Baron von Hammerstein, who was a general in the Air Force, Judiciary and who is at this time either in an American or British captivity.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to Dr. Von Hammerstein, the Tribunal allowed interrogatories on the 9th of February, and Dr. Stahmer has nt yet submitted the interrogatories, and the witness is not yet located.
I have no objection to interrogatories. It seems as if this is essentially the type of witness that interrogatories would be most helpful with. He was the equivalent, as I understand it, of our Judge Advocate General of the Air Force, and interrogatories as to procedure, as foreshadowed in this application, would be a matter to which the Prosecution takes no objection at all. If he can be found, then Dr. Stahmer can administer the interrogatories as seen as he likes.
DR. STAHMER: As far as I could find out, I have not received any decision that an interrogatory should be sent, but I would like to ask to call Hammerstein as a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Upon our documents, the right to administer interrogatories was granted 9 February.
DR. STAHMER: I can not find it at this moment, but I will check on it, Your Honor. for many years, and that is concerning the subject which for the judgment on the defendant and his attitude to the war and also to the treatment of the population in occupied territories and the prisoners of war is of the greatest importance, and here also it will be important that the witness should give to the Tribunal detailed information about these facts and describe them in a manner here which can not possibly be done in an interrogatory or in can answer to an interrogatory.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am told, My Lord, that the interrogateries have been sent in and reached the Tribunal Secretariat a day or two ago. I don't want to add to my point.
DR. STAHMER: Yes, sir, I believe that is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer, the next one?
DR. STAHMER: The next witness is Baron von Brauohitsch, Colonel of the Air Force, the Luftwaffe, son of General Field Marshal von Brauchitse who is also here in the Nurnberg prison.