humanity. Again Dr. Horn will find it dealt with, with every document mentioned, in the transcript for the 9th of January. and clarity of the case against the defendant Ribbentrop is manifest.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, in my defense I have referred to the statements orally made by Sir David. I have not only taken the point of view of refuting these individual points, but I must now return to what Sir David just said. consider them from the point of view of the conspiracy, for Ribbentrop, according to the statement of the prosecution, was a member of this conspiracy, and we have yet to answer the question: When did this conspiracy begin? participation in the conspiracy began in the year 1932, contrary to the assertion of the Prosecution, and I should like to we documents and witnesses to prove that then and later he entered into no conspiracy.
THE PRESIDENT: Well now, perhaps you will get on with the documents which you want.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, with regard to the documents, I have had the opportunity of discussing it informally with Dr. Horn, and I understand that with regard to Documents 1 to 14, DR. Horn really wants these books as working books which he can read and use and, if necessary, take extracts from to illustrate his argument and point at that time. Now, that is a matter of course to which we make no objection a all. I have consistently taken the view that there she old be no objection to any book for working purposes for the Defense.What I want to ask is this, that if Dr. Horn or any otherdefense counsel wishes to use an extract from a book when it comes to presenting his case, he will let us know what the extract is and, if necessary, for what purpose he is going to use it, I say "if necessary" because in many cases it will be quite apparent for what purpose, but in some cases it may have special significance, and if they let us know, then any question of relevance can be argued when the matter is produced in court.
THE PRESIDENT: But that seems to me to be necessary in order that the documents should be translated.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Quite, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I mean that the part of the bock or part of the document which Dr. Horn wants to use should be translated.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But as far as providing the defense with working copies, any cooperation that the Prosecution can do in that way they will gladly do. That is a matter on which we should be anxious to help. I haven't discussed these with Dr. Horn, but I respectfully submit -and it is the united view of the prosecution -- that complete files of newspapers will be difficult to justify as evidence before the Tribunal, but again, if Dr. Horn wants them for matters of reference, then it just becomes a question of possibility. or whether it is merely desired to have then to refer to. I don't know anything about No. 19, the withdrawn number of the Daily Telegraph, but I suppose the secretariat can make inquiries about that from the proprietors.
DR. HORN: I should like to remark on this last point, Mr. President.
basis for my case. I should like to ask about the numbers of these newspapers. It is a matter here of four newspapers or three, bound up by months. The numbers of these newspapers will be made available to the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you say about the withdrawn number of the Daily Telegraph?
You haven't yet indicated whether it would be relevant.
DR. HORN: In August, 1939, a statement of the Daily Telegraph was withdrawn because it had the greatest details about the memorandum which the then Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop submitted to the English Ambassador, Henderson, in Berlin. It is asserted by the Prosecution as well that Ribbentrop read this note to Henderson so rapidly that he was unable to understand the essential points of it. will be seen to what extent Ambassador Henderson was in a position to understand Ribbentrop's oral presentation of that memorandum. I am convinced that the Prosecution is able to get its hands on a copy of this paper, since it has it at his disposal, but it wasnot presented to us.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, this is the first time that I have heard of this withdrawn copy apart -- in this application, and it is obviously a point on which I -
THE PRESIDENT: The first time you have heard there was any copy withdrawn.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have never heard it except from Dr. Horn that there was a copy withdrawn, and I shall probably have to investigate the matter.
I only want to say one thing, that of course Dr. Horn has just made one point about the question between this defendant and Sir Neville Henderson. It is a case for the Defendant Goering, as expressed in Dr. Stahmer's interrogatories that the Defendant Goering had caused the contents of this memorandum to be given unofficially to Mr. Dahlerus behind the Defendant Ribbentrop's back. That is the case which he is making in the interrogatories, so that it by no means follows that Sir Neville Henderson's account of the interview was wrong, even if an account of the document had come out.
I don't want to make a point of the memory of Sir Neville, but shall investigate the matter, which I have just heard now for the first time.
DR. HORN: May I add, to clarify this matter for the Tribunal, that the Defendant Goering was only at a much later date in touch with Ambassador Henderson and made the memorandum available to him. It is very important when Henderson received this memorandum and at what time he became aware of its contents, in order to exploit the possibility of making it available to the Polish Government at the right time.
Telegraph be procured.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Dr. Horn.
DR. NELTE (Counsel for Defendant Keitel): Mr. President, permit me to make a few prefatory remarks before I request my various witnesses and documents. I hope that the trial can be materially shortened in duration through this application I am about to make. theme that keeps returning, namely, the position of the Defendant Keitel as Chief of the OKW and in his other official functions, his personality and in particular his relationship to Hitler. Further, the clarification of the command relationships in the Wehrmacht. is false which public opinion and the Prosecution have drawn of the personality of the Defendant and of the possibilities of his effectiveness. No name has been so frequently mentioned in the course of this proceeding as that of the Defendant Keitel. Every document that had anything to do in any way with military matters was identified with the OKW and the OKW in turn was identified with Keitel.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal appreciates the general points which you will probably want to argue on behalf of the Defendant Keitel, when you come to make your final 'speech, but it does not appear to the Tribunal to be necessary that you should do so now.
DR. NELTE: I am doing it in order to explain why I am calling all the witnesses whom I shall call, so that you can form a cumulative judgment. I spoke about this with Sir David on Saturday. I wanted right at the beginning to explain the tenor of my line of proof, so that you would be in the picture, so to speak, on this matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean, Dr. Nelte, that you will be able to deal with all your witnesses in one series of observations?
(Directed to Sir David) Could you help us, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYTE: I think I can help.
Apart from the witnesses who are Co-Defendants that are mentioned by Dr. Nelte, whom of course the Tribunal has already provided, Dr. Nelte asks for Field Marshal von Blomberg and General Halder and General Warlimont and the Chief Staff Judge of the OKW, Dr. Lehmann.
The Prosecution have no objection to these witnesses, because they are called to deal with the position of the Defendant Keitel as head of the OKW. a specific point as to his position in the Committee for Reich Defense -
THE PRESIDENT: Have the interrogatories already been granted?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, we have always said that interrogatories would be sufficient and he should not be called as an oral witness.
Then with regard to the next, Roomer, whom Dr. Nelte wishes to call to say that the decree for the branding of Soviet Russian prisoners of war was announced by mistake and retracted at once on the order of Keitel, that is obviously relevant to one matter in the case, and we don't object to that.
We don't object to General Reinecke, who is called on various matters relating to prisoners of war.
With regard to Mr. Romilly, as long as it is confined to interrogatories which have been allowed, and he is not called orally, we have no objection.
My friend, Mr. Champetier de Ribes, will have a word to say about Ambassador Scarpini. I have asked him to deal with that matter.
Then we come to two witnesses, Dr. Junod and Mr. Patterson. At the moment the Prosecution cannot see how these witnesses areneeded in addition to General Reineeke. And of course they would object if the purpose of the testimony is to show that the Soviet Union did not treat its prisoners of war properly. If that is the purpose, they would object.
Then the calling of Dr. Lammers has been granted by the Tribunal. to show that at discussions between Hitler and the Defendant Keitel, two stenographers had to be present. The Prosecution do not reward that as a very vital part of the case, and if Dr. Nelte will produce an affidavit from, one of these gentlemen, then the Prosecution are not in a position -- and do not desire to -- dispute the point. Frankly, if I may say so, and with the greatest respect, we are not at all interested in that point, and therefore will be content with an affidavit if produced, If I night summarise -- and I hope I am only trying to help Dr. Nolte -the only matters which, as far as the prosecution are concerned, require further discussion is the ratter of what the French Delegation will have to say about Ambassador Scarpini, and my objection to Dr. Junod and Mr. Patterson, and my suggestion as to an affidavit for the last three witnesses, There is very little between us.
If I may say so, with respect to Dr. Nelte's witnesses, on the whole they seem to the Prosecution to be obviously relevant and in that case we make no objection. which I think Dr. Nelte has been informed. I understand that Field Marshal von Blomberg is very ill at the moment and cannot be brought into Court, so that I am sure, Dr. Nelte, the Defendant Keitel will be the first to accept some method of getting his evidence which will not necessitate that fact.
DR. NELTE: Thank you, Sir David, for making lay task easier.
I should like to add that as regards the witness, Dr. Erbe, I shall inquire in writing, submit questions in writing the answers to which will determine whether or not I ask for him as a witness. As for the witness Junod, I believe I may say that hearing him here is relevant because the Soviet Prosecution submitted evidence that an offer to apply the Geneva Convention was specifically turned down by Keitel. Dr. Junod is to be heard as a witness to testify that on the commission of the OKW department in charge of prisoners of war he tried to get in touch with the Soviet Union in order to assure the application of the Geneva Convention, but that this connection could not be achieved, I believe that if General Reinecke alone is to be heard on this subject, as a witness, one could perhaps object that his testimony as chief of the department in charge of prisoners of war was not sufficient proof, that Reinecke cannot prove what Dr. Junod actually did. Consequently, I ask that this witness be approved. an affidavit. constant representative of the French Vichy Government and was particularly concerned with the question of Germany's war prisoners. I believe that that is adequate reason for considering his testimony relevant. To be sure, I did not know his address, and hope that the French Prosecution can help me in that regard.
M. CHAMPETIER de RIBES: We see no objection to hearing the former Ambassador, Scarpini, if his testimony in our judgment can have the slightest bearing on the search for truth; but the reasons which Dr. Nelte gives for the calling of this witness seem to me to demonstrate the complete absence of relevance of his testimony. The former Ambassador, says the honorable representative of the Defense, could demonstrate and say that he freely exercised his control in the prisoners' camps and that the camps and that the war prisoners had a man in whom they had confidence, but this we are very willing to grant to the Defense.
It is perfectly true that Germany had been willing to have farmer Ambassador Scarpini -whom we know was wounded in 1914 in the previous war, and blinded -could visit the camps of prisoners and, if he could not see, hear the French war prisoners. But the question is not to find out whether the Germans had been willing to have a blind inspector visit the camps. The only question presented by the indictment is whether in spite of the visits of these inspectors and in spite of the presence of a man of confidence in the camp, there did not occur in these camps acts contrary to the laws of war. On this point former Ambassador Scarpini could surely give no answer, for nothing obviously happened before him in his presence. This is why the French prosecution considers that the testimony of former Ambassador Scarpini would shed, no light in this search for truth.
DR. NELTE: It was not Known to me that Ambassador Scarpini he was blind. It was not he himself, but rather the delegation of which he was head, that made inspection tours of the prisoner-of-war camps. It is certain that in these, prisoner-of-war camps events took place that were offenses against the Geneva Convention, but the question at issue here is that the Defendant Keitel and the OKW, as the highest authority, did all that, or attempted to do that which in this function as highest authority they had to do.
The OKW had no command authority ever the individual camps. It had only to give the regulations as to how the prisoners of war were to be treated and had to take care that the protecting powers had opportunity to visit the camps.
THE PRESIDENT: Would interrogatories be satisfactory, supposing we thought it proper to administer them to Mr. Scarpini?
DR. NELTE: An interrogation in Nurnberg? Could ambassador Scarpini be heard in Nurnberg?
THE PRESIDENT: I was asking whether interrogatories would be satisfactory. I imagine Mr. Scarpini is not in Nurnberg. Written interrogatories, I mean, of course, where I have mentioned them.
DR. NELTE: I should like the written affidavits, which I should like to submit.
Will they suffice? For, I assume that Ambassador Scarpini is to be interrogated in writing.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, in writing. Will that be satisfactory to you, Mr. de Ribes?
M. de RIBES: Yes, that will be quite satisfactory. THE PRESIDENT: I think perhaps we might adjourn now, Dr. Nelte, until a quarter past two.
(A recess was taken until 1415 hours).
THE PRESIDENT: I think, Dr. Nelte, you had really finished with your witnesses, had you not?
DR. NELTE (counsel for defendant Keitel): I believe that is right, but I must make some general reservations on what I may have to say after the end of the Russian case and whether I will have to call for one or two other witnesses I would merely like to ask one or two questions of the Tribunal with reference to the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
DR. NELTE: Those documents which interest me with reference to Keitel. The Tribunal knows the main line of my defense, and so as to prove errors which have been made by the prosecution, in particular with reference to the jurisdiction and responsibility of the OKW and the Defendant Keitel, which has often been mistaken by the Prosecution, I can refer to a very large number of documents presented by the Prosecution. as evidence. These documents are already in the possession of the Tribunal, and I request your examination and decision regarding the necessity of my quoting such documents in my presentation, without it being necessary to quote them in detail or to submit them judicially. Tribunal to the fact that after the Tribunal has been informed about the structure of the German army and the jurisdiction of various departments, it will be able to decide for themselves which of the documents which have been presented by the Prosecution can be regarded as evidence regarding the responsibilities of the defendant Keitel and about such documents which are not suitable for that purpose. will examine a documents carefully, even so far as the Defense are not presenting such document, and if you will consider the very large number of documents, of which there are several thousands, the Tribunal will no doubt realize that I car not quote all the important documents completely in my presentation.
That is question Number One. regarding my presentation which is probably of general importance. following statement, and I quote:
" The fourth and last chapter will have the following heading: The Administrative Organization. I can state that the French delegation has examined for the Fourth Chapter more than 2,000 documents, and I am referring to the German original documents. Of those, approximately 50 were retained. appears to be no doubt that these 50 chosen documents are only important from the point of view of implicating the defendant. On 11 February, if I remember correctly, I addressed myself to the French Prosecution with a request to place at my disposal all the remaining 1,950 documents, so that I could examine them. I mean those documents which the French Prosecution did not use.
Up to now, I have remained without any reply to this request. The Tribunal will, no doubt, appreciate the difficulties of my position. I know that there are documents which contain, no doubt, a number of facts useful for the Defense and yet I can not quote these documents in detail. that the Prosecution should place at my disposal those documents which are in their possession.
THE PRESIDENT: With reference to these particular documents that you are asking for, are you going to say anything about them?
DR. NELTE: I do not know the contents of these documents. I only know that the French Prosecution -
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you wish to deal with that now, I will ask the French Prosecutor to answer what you have said.
DR. NELTE: Certainly, it is entirely up to the tribunal to decide on that Question in a closed session or to make a decision right now.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think we had better hear from the French Prosecutor now.
M. DUBOST: A certain number of documents were doubtful, and they were in our hands at the time that we were beginning to prepare our prosecution.
We have eliminated all documents which could not bear serious critical examination We carefully cited all the documents and threw out all those that were considered to be insufficient proof. Those documents which are referred to by my colleagues have been put aside, or, if I recollect correctly, three or four which I can not determine at the moment have been thrown our. In these conditions, we have not put at the disposal of the Defense 1950 document We handed over to the Court and to the Defense 500 documents which in themselves seemed to us to have sufficient probitive value. to have handed to them various documents which have been thrown out by themselves as not having sufficient probitive value. As far as I am concerned, I must oppose this application because the result would be to take into account documents which did not conform to the standards that we had set.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but, M. Dubost, the position is this: There were a large number of documents which the Counsel for the French Prosecution said that they had examined, and the French Prosecution, in the exercise of their discretion, thought it unnecessary to refer to more than a certain number of them, but it is only the French Prosecution who have exercised their discretion about those documents, and what Dr. Nelte is asking is to see them for the purpose of seeing whether there as anything in the documents which assisted his case. Would the French Prosecution have any objection to that? of the French Prosecution, but those that are in their possession, would the French Prosecution object to Dr. Nelte seeing those?
M. DUBOST: May I remind, the Tribunal that the documents which we rejected were not rejected as useless to the debates, but as not presenting sufficient guarantee as to their origin or as to the conditions under which they were obtained and as to their probative value. The Tribunal will no doubt remember that a certain number of these documents were thrown out by the Court itself. Those that they did not take up are of the same character as those documents which were thrown out. We did not bring them forward because we could not tell you where, how, and under (what conditions they had been discovered. For the most part, they are documents that fell into the hands of combat troops during the war, and under the terms of jurisprudence laid down by the Tribunal do not offer sufficient guarantee; and in the state in which they are at present in my possession I am ready to communicate them to Defense Counsel, but I do not think they will attach any higher value to them than I did.
THE PRESIDENT: That may very well be. I think that all Dr. Nelte wants is to see any documents which you have brought to see whether he can find anything in them that he thinks may help the case of the Defendant for whom he appears, and I understand you wouldn't have any objection to his doing that.
M. DUBOST: I have no objection in principle. I would only answer the Defense Counsel that those documents have been rejected partly by the Court when I presented them.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, of course, it wouldn't apply to documents which have been rejected by the Court. Well-
Very well. We will not decide the matter new. We will consider it.
DR. NELTE: Would the Court announce their decision regarding the first question which I brought up, namely, whether it is sufficient hat I refer to documents which have been presented by the Prosecution without submitting them myself for judicial notice of the Court?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: On that point I would like to support Dr. Nelte's suggestion.
If a document has already been put in, I
THE PRESIDENT: I think that I have said on a variety of
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not know whether it would be convenient if I indicated to Dr. Nelte the views of the Prosecution on
THE PRESIDENT: I think it would shorten things if you would.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: A considerable number of the documents therefore Dr. Nelte may comment in accordance with your ruling.
of Defendants or intended witnesses: documents 12, 13, 22, 23, 24, Dr. Blaha, my friend, Mr. Dodd, adopted the practice of asking the witness, "Is your affidavit true?"
and then reading the affidavit to save time.
The Prosecution have no objection to Dr. Nelte pursuing
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. You mean that, if the witness is Feb - A - O'B - 3 here, you have no objection to Dr. Nelte reading the affidavit and the witness being then liable to cross-examination?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The witness will say, "I agree; I verify the facts that are in my affidavit."
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think it might save considerable time in the examination-in-chief, and we should all be prepared to co-operate in that.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, is Dr. Nelte agreeable to that course? Is that what he means?
DR. NELTE: Yes, absolutely.
THE PRESIDENT: Possibly, Sir David, if the affidavit were presented to the Prosecution, they might be able to say that they did not wish to cross-examine. That would save the witness being here or being brought here.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It might be in the case of Dr. Lehmann. I think all the other cases are either Defendants or witnesses with regard to whom there are certain points which the Prosecution would like to ask. their being used: 18, 26 and 27. sure at the moment, but it may be that Dr. Nelte will explain how he wishes to use them, and that may remove the difficulty of the Prosecution. If the Tribunal will be good enough to look at 1 and 2: 1 is an expert's opinion on state laws concerning the Fuehrer State, and the importance of the Fuehrer order, and document 2 is an order of the Fuehrer number 1. the Charter, the Prosecution will object.
That is a question of superior orders.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If they are only used to explain the background as a matter of history, that may be a different matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Before you pass -
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: -- a need for a ministry of rearmament, taken from --
THE PRESIDENT: Even so, Sir David, in your submission, ought we to accept the opinion of an expert on such a point?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, Your Honor. We don't at all. I am afraid that my second remark really applied to the order of the Fuehrer. That might be used as a background or it might be used for purposes of mitigation or explanation of how a thing took place, but I respectfully agree that the expert's opinion on state laws cannot be used with regard to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Of course, the law of any other state may be a question of fact as far as the Tribunal is concerned just as it would be a question of fact in an English court: What is the law of another state?" As I say, I Want to reserve emphatically the position of Article 8 With regard to these two documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, Documents 10 and 11 dealt with rearmament in other countries, I don't want to prevent the defense using illustrations, but again I reserve the position most emphatically that rearmament in other countries cannot be an excuse for aggressive war and could be irrelevant on that point. General Temperley, who are both ex-officers, win were journalists during this period. As for as any question of fact that is stated in these books, if Dr. Nelte will let us know what the passage is, we shall see whether we could admit it, but the general views of Major General Fuller and Major General Temperley we would submit to be irrelevant.
Then, 19, 20, and 20 are books about Austria. Again the Prosecution reserves the position that the earlier state of opinion in Austria with regard to an anschluss is irrelevant when considering the question of the aggressive action in breach of the Treaty of 1936 which took place in 1938.
I think, My Lord, that I have now dealt with all the documents and, as I say, they fall into these four groups; with regard to three of which there is nothing really between us in principle and, with regard to the fourth, the Prosecution wants to reserve these various points which I have mentioned. Again I want to make clear that the Prosecution does net object to Dr. Nelte obtaining any of these books for the purpose of preparing his case, but we want them to make clear at the earliest opportunity what their position is with regard to their use.
DR. NELTE: With reference to the first three categories, I am glad to say that we agree and I can, therefore, refer to that category which begins with the two documents, Nos. 1 and 2. One of them is important principle questions in this trial which to start with appears to be an entirely legal problem. It is the question of the so-called Leader State (Fuehrersteat) and Leader Order (Fuehrer Order). This question has, however, other important actual significance in this trial since, for instance, the defendant Keitel, because of his exposed position, was to a very considerable degree subject to the effect of this Leader State. He acted because he was continuously closely attached to the incarnation f this leadership principle, none other than Hitler. It isn't as if Article 8 of the Charter would be uneffected by this. Evidence would merely have to be collected for the fact, I assume, that Article 8 cannot be applied to this particular case.
Regarding the Leader Order No. 1, Document No. 2, the Tribunal will be able to judge whether this has importance as evidence at the time when the Tribunal hears this Order.
This is the warning in this Order: Nobody must have knowledge of secret matters which do not fall into his own sphere of influence and his tasks; nobody should hear more than he must know for a fulfillment of the tasks which are given to him; nobody must know earlier about facts than is necessary for the carrying out of the tasks given to him; no one should pass on secret matters earlier than it was absolutely necessary to other departments under his command.
State, it seems to me that this, in connection with Fuehrer Order No. 1, should serve as evidence for the fact that a conspiracy in the sense of the Prosecution is not possible in that conception. That is the reason why I request the Tribunal to admit those two documents. Document No. 10 and Document No. 11, and to a certain degree Document 16, are submitted because we are trying to prove that the principles which the defendant Keitel as a soldier in the German Army considered good and proper, namely, rearmament up to the point of an expected position of Germany amongst the other nations; that these principles were not only a requirement for a German, but that even foreigners and important persons at that did understand that and approved, of it. This part of my case will be served by the submission of an Article of 2 British, a French and an American author of military standing, military personalities who seem to me to have a name as military writers. Also in this category falls the article "Total War", written by Major General Fuller, which is my Document No. 15, as well as the book of the British Major General Temperley, "The Whispering Gallery of Europe". Mr. Fuller, for instance, writes in his article:
"It is nonsense to state that he, Hitler, wanted the war. A war could not bring him the reincarnation of his nation. What he needed was an honorable, secure peace." tention of the planning aggressive wars was contradictory if one considers the intentions of Hitler and the other National Socialists as honest. and for the purpose of proving that, he wishes to refer to the opinion of important persons abroad whose names have great significance. of the Prosecution to state their objections.
THE PRESIDENT: You mentioned Documents 19 to 21, which documents were meant to reveal a certain state of opinion in Austria.
DR. NELTE: Yes. Those documents -- No.19 dealing with the question of the anschluss of Austria and its cultural and economic difficulties; and Document 20, the way toward the anschluss and the question of the anschluss in the international press. These documents are meant to prove that the defendant was entitled to assume that the vast majority of Austrians desired that Austria should join Germany. These articles and memoranda of the Austrian-German Peoples Union, the president of which was the Social Democrat member of the German Parliament, Loewe.
THE PRESIDENT: That concludes the documents, does it not?
DR. NELTE: I should like to make an additional application to the Tribunal, which refers to documents which I have been unable to mention earlier since they weren't mentioned until the session of February 22nd. This application of mine I shall now submit. It refers to eleven documents, all of which were presented during the session of Friday and which were evidence of participation of Keitel in the crime during the retreat and slave workers. From the contents of these documents which were submitted by the Prosecution, it becomes apparent what I have already submitted to the Tribunal, namely, that a large number of the accusations of the Prosecution are due to the fact that every document which in any way dealt with military matters was simply credited to the OKW and Keitel.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, as I understand it, all these documents have already been put into evidence.
DR. NELTE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then they fall into the category to which Sir David agreed. They could be touched on by you.
DR. NELTE: That is correct, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you made application in connection with them?
DR. NELTE: When I made this, additional application I had not yet received Sir David's agreement. Apart from that, it appears to me to be a particularly interesting and convincing case because during one day eleven documents were submitted to the Tribunal, all of which contain accusations against Keitel, but all of which proved by their contents that they do not refer to him or the OKW.