THE PRESIDENT: I do not think this is the appropriate time to put documents in in that way.
GENERAL RUDENKO: Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: It must be translated into German, of course.
GENERAL RUDENKO: I have no German translation of this document.
THE PRESIDENT: It has to be translate, into German in order that defendant's counsel may see it.
GENERAL RUDENKO: Yes,sir, it will be done.
DR. STAHMER: Lawyer Stahner for the defendant Goering.
Mr. President, May I ask to have the document read--It seems to be a very short document-- so that we can gather what is contained therein?
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Will you read it, General Rudenko?
GENERAL RUDENKO: I can read it into the record; it is not very long:
"Certificate based on the investigation performed by the Polish Legal Authority. The High Commission for the investigation of German crimes in Poland certifies that the so-called Bloody Sunday in the town of Mickdish (?) took place on the 3rd September, 1939, that is to say, three days after the time when Poland was subjected to the German attack.
"On the 3rd September 1939, at 1015 in the morning, the German forces attacked the Polish Army which was retreating from Micdish. Of the crumbling Polish retreating army 238 Polish soldiers perished and 258 Germans. After the entrance of the German Army into the town of Mickdish, they began mass execution, arrest, and deportation to concentration camps of Polish citizens, which were performed by the German authorities, the SS, and the Gestapo. There were 10,500 murdered and 30,000 who were exterminated in the camps.
"This Certificate appears as an official document of the Polish Government and is submitted to the International Military Tribunal in accordance with Article 21 of the Charter of the 8th of August 1945.
"Stephan Kurovski, a member of the High Commission for the investigation of German crimes in Poland." the Defendant Goering gave testimony happened after the attack by Germany on Poland.
THE WITNESS: I am not sure whether we are both referring to the same event.
BY GENERAL RUDENKO:
Q I am speaking about the events in the Town of Mickdish. you spoke about them.
A Maybe there were to such events, one Town of Bromberg.
I should like to know the following question: stigmatization of Soviet prisoners of war, and what do you think about that? air force was present, as I ascertain from the files. I am talking about-The orders are not quite clear. and citizens had to be used for hard labor and that they had to transport bombs that had not exploded? Do you know about that? Russians I have knowledge. Just how far civillians had been employed for that purpose I do not know. B ut it was possible. of Leningrad, Moscow, and other towns of the Soviet union? document which was read out yesterday, and maybe it is meant in the sense that the Finns in case of capture of Leningrad won't have use of such a big city. Of the destruction of Moscow I know nothing at all. July, 1941?
Q Did you speak about this same document? Regarding this statement. there were also official orders? whether they are correct or not and whether they were known to me.
Q I do not wish to submit these documents to you. They have already been submitted to the Tribunal. I am only interested in the fact of whether you were aware of these orders.
A I haven't received any order to destroy Leningrad or Moscow in the sense which you have indicated.
Q All right. You were only told about the very important happenings such as the annihilation of cities, and so forth?
been given to me directly.
"for that you will have to answer very dearly."
Do you remember this testimony of your witness? recollect at all. That was never said by that witness Bodenschatz. Please refer to the record of the session.
Q How did Bodenschatz say that? Do you remember his testimony?
Q Why? For the murders which had been perpetrated? I should like to put to you only one question in this connection and I should like you to reply directly to it. Were you in accord with this principals of the Master Race or were you not in accord with it? verbally or in writing. The differences between races of course I recognize indeed. this theory? superior to the other and should be destroyed by the Master Race. I have merely underlined the differences between races. or no, you disagree with it?
Q The next question: You have stated here at the Tribunal that you did not agree with Hitler regarding the question of Czechoslakia, the Jewish question, the question of war with the Soviet Union, the value of the theory of the Master Race, and the question of shooting of the British airman who were prisoners of war.
How would you explain that, having such serious differences you still thought it possible to collaborate with Hitler and to continue his policy?
A. That was not the way I worded my answer. Here, too, we must consider and separate the periods in phases of time. As to the attack against Russia, we were not concerned with basic differences but with differences of time.
Q. Excuse me; I don't want you to be lengthy on this theme. Will you reply directly?
A. All right. I can be of a different opinion from that of my supreme leader, and I can explain that opinion clearly. If the Supreme leader insists and maintains his opinion clearly. If the Supreme leader insists and maintains his opinion and I have sworn allegiance to him, then the discussion comes to an end, just as it is the case elsewhere and I don't think I need to be any more clear about that.
Q. You are not just a simple soldier, as you stated here; but you have presented yourself to be also a statesman.
A. You are absolutely right. I am not a simple soldier, and particularly because I am not a simple soldier but occupy a leading position I had to set an example for the attitude and adherence to an oath of allegiance. My attitude had to be an example for the ordinary soldier.
Q. In other words, you thought that, with the presence of these differences with Hitler, you had to be loyal to him and to collaborate with him
A. I have emphasized -- and I maintain -- that that is correct. My oath does not only hold good in good times but particularly when times are bad, although the Fuehrer had never threatened me or never told me that he was afraid for my health.
Q. If you thought it possible to cooperate with Hitler, as the second man in Germany, are you responsible for the organizing of gread murders of millions of innocent people independently, whether you knew about those facts or not? Tell me briefly, yes or no.
A. No, because I didn't know them or cause them.
Q. I should like to set out again whether you were informed of these facts or not.
A. If I don't know facts, then I can't be responsible for them.
Q. You had to know about these facts.
A. I shall be a little explicit about that.
Q. I should like to ask you to reply to me to this question: You had to know about these facts.
A. Why did I have to know about them? Either I know them or I don't know them. You cannot only ask me if I was negligent and failed to obtain knowledge.
Q. You ought to know better. Millions of Germans knew about the crimes which were being perpetrated, and you did not know about them?
A. Millions of Germans didn't know about them either. That is a statement which is by no means an established fact.
Q. The last two questions: You stated to the Tribunal that Hitler's Government brought Germany to life. Do you still think that it was so?
A. Until the beginning of the war, under all circumstances, yes. The collapse was due to the last war.
Q. As a result of which you brought Germany -- as a result of your politics -- to military and civilian destruction.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Chief Prosecutor for France wish to cross examine?
M. CHAMPETIER DE RIBES: I would like to answer to the desire expressed by the Tribunal and to abbreviate as much as possible the discussions of this trial. The French Prosecution has come to an agreement with Mr. Jackson and with Sir David and the questions brought up to Goering as a witness should only be those which are considered pertinent. The questions have been asked and we heard them, as far as it was possible to obtain from him anything except propaganda speeches. tailed. It has been able to use its freedom abundantly in the past twelve days and has not been able in any way to weaken the Prosecution accusation. The second man in German life has been able to pretend that he was in no way responsible for the war; that he knew nothing of the atrocities committed by the men that he was so proud of.
THE PRESIDENT: You will no doubt have the opportunity later to make comment, but the question that I ask you now is whether you wish to ask the witness definite questions.
M. DE RIBES: Mr. President, I have finished all that I wanted to say to you. After all the long discussions, the French Prosecution feels that nothing has been changed in the accusation which we brought forth previously. We have no further questions to ask the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer? BY DR. STAHMER:
Q. The British Prosecution has stated that the Hermann Goering Division during its use in Italy had received direct orders referring to the fight against the partisans. Is that statement correct?
A. No. The Hermann Goering Division was a ground division and was tactically attached to an army and army group. Consequently, it never received any orders directly from Berlin or my headquarters, which was not at the same location. In fact, no orders with tactical use could have reached it through these channels. I could not have given it any orders as to where it was to be used in the partisan fight and how. This concerns orders only which referred to materiel and equipment questions, and they were orders also which referred to certain orricers; not did the division report to me daily.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I didn't catch that. I am sorry, My Lord, I should have spoken earlier. I gather that these questions are directed to the Hermann Goering Division. The Defendant never dealt with that point when he was being examined in chief; and, therefore, I never dealt with it in cross examination, because the point had not been raised. It is therefore my position that it is quite inadmissible for the matter to be raised in re-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: You must remember, Sir David, that the practice in foreign countries isn't the same as the practice in the United States and in England; and although it is perfectly true that Dr. Stahmer, according to the rules of England at any rate, would not be able to raise this point in reexamination, we are directed by the Charter not to deal technically with any question of evidence. It may be you would have to ask him some questions thereafter in cross examination, although I hope that won't be necessary, in view of the evidence of the witness Kesselring.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL*FYFE: I considered that point, but I only wanted to make it clear that the Prosecution has not dealt with this point at all, because it hadn't been raised previously.
THE PRESIDENT: No; either in the examination or in the cross examination
SIR DAVID MAXWELL*FYFE: Or in the cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, I had already noticed the point that the question hadn't been raised in the evidence of Hermann Goering.
DR. STAHMER: May I add an explanation and raise the point that I received that document only yesterday and consequently could not have referred to that question any earlier.
THE PRESIDENT: But, if my recollection is correct, the witness Fieldmarshal Kesselring raised this very point himself, and therefore the point was obvious and could have been raised in examination in chief, in which case it would have been of the Defendant Goering. It doesn't depend upon any particular document; it depends upon the evidence of the Fieldmarshal Kesselring, who said -- I think the word as it was translated was that he was by-passed between the division Hermann Goering and the Defendant Goering, although the division Hermann Goering was under his command. So it has nothing to do with any document.
DR. STAHMER: May the witness continue now, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
A. The division was under my command only as far as personnel was concerned -- commissioning of officers and equipment -- but not as far as tactical use was concerned. I did not receive daily reports but received them at irregular intervals regarding certain events -- losses, replacements, etc. That, on the whole, was all the connection I had with that division. For its use in battle, I could be have given any orders, since it was under the common of parts of the army.
Q. Did you receive a report regarding the events at Tivitella?
A. No, I did not receive that report. It wasn't until I heard the affidavit of a general of the army that I heard about it. The general who was commanding that division and who was also responsible for these matters is apparently now trying to push that responsibility on to the division, and because of the name of the division on to me.
Q. Your relationship to Hitler and the influence upon him has often been touched on during cross examination, and just now too. Could you just summarize the situation briefly and refer to the various periods, and are them any facts which are necessary to judge that relationship?
A. Already during the cross examination I have pointed out that you have to deal with a very long period here. In 1923, when I was an SA leader, my relationship was normal. Then there is a long interval -- 1931.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May it please the Tribunal: I seems to me in the interests of time highly objectionable to allow the witness now to summarize.
He was given the advantage of answering any questions he wanted as he went along. It seems to me that when he has covered a subject at least once -and as a matter of fact he covered this one four or five times in an address at nearly every question that would permit -- that that at least should bring us to the end of that subject. It was exhausted.
The matter of time here is a grave matter. By our calculation -- a careful calculation -- of the witnesses which have been allowed, this trial will now project into August. It doesn't seem that we should allow him to play this game both ways, to make his speeches during the cross examination and the to sum them up again afterwards.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal has allowed you to ask questions which, strictly speaking, are not admissible in re-examination and I want to make it clear to you what questions are admissible in re-examination -- only those which arise out of the cross examination. As to this particular question, the Defendant Goering was allowed to make what were really speeches in his examination in chief without any interruption whatever and he went over the whole history of the Nazi regime from its inception until the end of the war and the Tribunal does not consider that he ought to be at liberty to go over the same ground again in re-examination.
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, I had merely put that question because up to now it had not been dealt with in summary and I thought it advisable for the judgment of the defendant and his attitude during that time, to have a complete and detailed story of this phase which is important for the decision made in this trial. If, however, the Tribunal objects to this question, I shall certainly submit to that decision and withdraw the question. BY DR. STAHMER:
Q. I have another question. During your examination, you have stated regarding certain accusations, that you considered yourself responsible and that you assume responsibility.
A. In connection with responsibility, you have to make a difference between factual and formal. Formally, I am assuming responsibility for all that that was done by all those departments and offices who were under my command; although I could not possibly have known or previously seen everything that was discussed or issued by those departments, I must nevertheless assume responsibility, formally speaking, for that, particularly where we are concerned with directives and measures which I had given generally and which were then executed. The actual responsibility, I see wherever orders, directives or measures were immediately originating from me and all facts and orders which were wigned by me personally and issued by me; that I am talking about facts and not so much general words and statements which were made during those twenty-five years here and there or in smaller circles. In detail, I want to talk about responsibility very clearly. The Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler, is dead.
I was regarded as his successor in the leading of the Ferman nation. Consequently, I must declare and state upon the question of my responsibility that it was my aim -
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would wish that you should not make speeches. The Tribunal is perfectly well able to understand the difference between formal responsibility and actual responsibility for orders given by you.
THE WITNESS: Consequently, I acknowledge that I am responsible for all I have done, that I have prepared the seizure of power, carried it through, strengthened it, and that I was attempting to make Germany free and great. I have done everything to avoid this war but after it had started, it was my duty to do everything that I had to do.
THE PRESIDENT: We have already heard you say that more than once and we do not wish to hear it again.
THE WITNESS: On the question of labor during the war, the inhabitants of the occupied territories were used to work in Germany and their countries were exploited economincally.
THE PRESIDENT: You are supposed to be asking questions of the witness. Now, what question is that in answer to?
DR. STAHMER: I had asked him on the question of his responsibility -
THE TRIBUNAL: You can ask him questions and not ask him general question which invite speeches. If you have any particular questions to ask him which arise out of the cross examination, now is the time to ask it.
DR. STAHMER: Then I put this question: To what extend does he consider himself responsible for the questions which have been mentioned here regarding the deportation of laborers and workers from the East?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I object to this question being put.
THE PRESIDENT: He has already told us about that. He answered that question more than once.
DR. STAHMER: In that case, I have not further questions to put.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then the defendant can retire.
(The witness retired.)
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer.
DR. STAHMER: May I first of all give a summary of the present position of the trial so that the Tribunal can clearly seen how we are at present regarding the list of witnesses, and I was going to forego Dr. Lohse's examination.
THE PRESIDENT: "Dr. Lohse" did you way?
DR. STAHMER: Yes, as I said, Dr. Lohse. I do not wish to call. Then, the defendant has already given sufficient statements on that subject. Further more, I had been granted the Ambassador, Dr. Paul Schmidt, as a witness. That witness to whom I want to ask a few questions only, I should like to hear later on, namely, when he is being interrogated for the Defendant Ribbentrop, where he is to answer a large number of questions, and it appears to me more suitable to do it then; and I am in accord with the wish of my colleague, Dr. Horn, as well, if the Tribunal will agree to that procedure, to hear the witness Kollar.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
DR. STAHMER: The Witness Kollar, as it has just been ascertained, is in Belgium and not, as previously thought, in Germany. Originally, it was planned to have him brought before the Tribunal provided he was resident in Germany Consequently, I shall have to submit an interrogatory to that witness, which has been done, but the questionnaire has not yet been received in return.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. STAHMER: Furthermore, I had received permission to put the questions to the Witness Freiherr von Hammerstein, Ondanza, Student, and Veltjens. I have been given permission to submit interrogatories to them, and this has been done but I have not yet received them back. In this case, the situation is that the addresses of the first two have since been ascertained; the rest, as to the other three witnesses, inquiries are still being made, so that I cannot yet read out their answers; and furthermore, interrogatories have been sent to Lord Halifax and Forbes and the questionnaires have been received, and I can read them out; and then there is a written statement as well.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean by "a written statement as well"? You said there are the interrogatories for Lord Halifax and Sir George Ogilvie Forbes.
DR. STAHMER: Lord Halifax, and Forbes, interrogatories have been received. Regarding Ueberreiter, a written affidavit is available and I assume that that may take the place of the interrogatory or questionnaire.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I understand.
DR. STAHMER: Furthermore, we are prepared with the case Katyn. Five witnesses were considered and regarding their addresses. I am still making inquiries. I haven't received anything further and, therefore, I am not yet in a position to have these witnesses called before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer. Was that all that you wish to say at this stage?
DR. STAHMER: Well, they are merely upon the question of the witnesses and now, of course, I shall still have to say what I have to say about the document and present them and then for the time being, I shall have completed my case. What I have to say about the documents has been compiled.
THE PRESIDENT: Just one moment.
DR. STAHMER: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal approves of the course which you suggest.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May I, in the interest of time, make a sugges-
tion, Your Honor, that these documents which Dr. Stahmer proposes to offer have been translated in all four languages, so that the necessity of reading them in open court does not sustain. I cannot speak for my colleagues since I have not consulted them, but so far as the United States is concerned, we will not raise a question of relevancy. I suggest that the reading of whole document book seems a waste of time of the Trial Court since the documents are available in all four languages.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, before we consider that course which has been suggested by Mr. Jackson, we should like to hear whether any of the Chief Prosecutors have anything to add to it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I would suggest that it is an excellent suggestion and I want to make it clear to the defense counsel that it will, on the whole, avoid agruments on relevancy and on the other hand the defense counsel could use any of the excerpts, and probably with more help to the Tribunal, if he would wait until his final argument to present these excerpts in support of his final argument. I consider that it will improve the general condition.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Sir David. We will hear in in a moment, Dr. Stahmer, but I do not want you to go away. Has General Rudenk anything to say?
GENERAL RUDENKO: I am fully in agreement with the suggestion of Judge Jackson and we think it wise and also consider that the Tribunal accept these documents which have been translated in four languages. This does not exclude the right of the defense to submit various documents. In particular I have an objection against submitting documents as exhibits from documents of the supposedly "white books" which are being submitted by Dr. Stahmer. These exhibits have nothing to do with the present case and they should not be submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the French Chief Prosecutor wish to add anything to what has been said?
M. DE RIBES: The French Prosecution would like to inform the Tribunal of a note concerning document 26, and wish to express objection to the admittance of this letter from the German Government to the French Govern-ment which concerns the treatment of German prisoners-of-war in France.
This extract comes from a secret order of the Commanding General of the 9th French Army. The General commanding the 9th French Army is said to have published an order. This order was not given to us, therefore, it is only an assumption of the German government, which is the government of the defendant, and therefore we contend that the extract which is offered to us has no relevancy and we therefore ask the Tribunal to reject it.
THE PRESIDENT: We are not concerned with a question of relevancy at this point. The Tribunal at the moment is not considering the question of relevancy of any particular document. They are only considering Justice Jackson's suggestion that instead of having all of these documents read in full, which will trice a very long time, the reason no longer exists to have these documents read since they have been put into four different languages by the prosecution's documentation department. The question of relevancy of individual documents or particular passages in the documents is decided by the Tribunal. As a general rule, and for the purpose of avoiding delay, the suggestion of Justice Jackson appears to have a great deal to recommend.
M. DE RIBES: The matter which is before us today, I thought, was to know whether all of the documents which are to be presented today are relevant, and that is why I asked that the Tribunal reject Document No. 26. If it is understood that this question may be reached later, there is not objection to postponing my objection, I wish only to state that Document Number 26 as Dr. Stahmer wishes to present it should be read in full to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: We would like to consider this matter, but before doing so, I would like to know if Dr. Stahmer understood what Justice Jackson said.
DR. STAHMER: Yes, indeed I understood, Mr. President, I should like to have a short discussion with the other defense counsels on this matter. I also want to point out now that come time ago we were willing to forego the reading of the indictment and that was not granted.
THE PRESIDENT: What did you say about the reading of the indictment?
DR. STAHMER: I now --
THE PRESIDENT: Are you making a complaint because the indictment has been read?
DR. STAHMER: No, no, no.
THE PRESIDENT: The matter stands upon a definite footing. The Charter, which is the document which governs the actions of this Tribunal, provided that the indictment must be read. What is not being suggested is not provided for in the Charter. The only reason why we reuled that the documents which the Prosecution must rely upon must be read in open court was because the Prosecution, at that time, had not found it possible to translate these documents into four different languages, and for the convenience and in fairness to the defendants and their counsel, we ordered that every sentence in a document upon which the prosecution relied would be read into the earphones so t hat they could come to you in German and so so that they could be put into the record at once in the transcript. That principle no longer applies to the documents which have been translated into four different languages by the Prosecution's Translation Division. Therefore, in the interest of time, which must be always equally important to the defense as well as to everyone else concerned, the Tribunal feels that the suggestion which Justice Jackson has made is a very sound one and you, of course, must comment in any way you think right during the course of your final presentation upon the document which is subject to any question of relevancy which may seem of importance. There may be certain documents submitted by the Prosecution, and as Justice Jackson said, he will not raise a question of relevancy, which should be into the document book and should be considered by the Tribunal. discuss the question with your colleagues.
(A short recess was taken)
DR. DIX (Counsel for defendant Schacht): Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I was of course not in a position to have a writ cast among my colleagues on the suggestion of Mr. Justice Jackson, particularly for the reason that not all defense counsel are present here at the moment. But I have been able to convince myself that the majority of the defense counsel, so far as the reason for my statement is concerned, approve, and I have no doubt whatever that all defense counsel are behind the application which I am about to make and which will be that the motion of Mr. Justice Jackson should be turned down. But for reasons of correctness and loyalty I think it is my duty to emphasize that naturally everyone of the gentlemen is entitled to speak on this question for his own case and the complex problems which he represents.
And now to the matter as such. The application of Mr. Justice Jackson was that in principle all the documents to be submitted by the defense, -- that in such a case such an accumulation of the contents of documents would be introduced into the trial without that their verbal presentation in opposition should assure that they are brought to the knowledge of the public; which would mean that the whole world which is passionately interested in this trial, would not know their contents. quote miles which could be used to contradict Mr. Justice Jackson's application. But I do quote and put at the head the principle which refers to the absolute correctness which is in existence between the Tribunal and us and the prosecution and us, and I am sure that there will be no difference of opinion, namely, that this whole trial must regard as its first principle that of justice and fairness. For that reason too the authors of the Charter have included paragraph four of the Charter and have given it quite a definite heading. It says, "Rules For a Just Trial." But I cannot consider it just and I cannot consider it fair if the prosecution month after month have the right to present their documents not only once but sometimes repeatedly and often. brought to the knowledge of the public, and I must remark at this point that when these documents were presented not only parts of the documents were presented, which in the opinion of the prosecution were implicating to the defendants, but parts were omitted which in our opinion were of importance to the defendants and mitigating.
It must be considered an injustice that a defendant should not have the opportunity too, and through his defense to bring to the knowledge of the world and the public those matters which are and in the opinion of the defense are in his favor. If the prosecution have previously had the right and opportunity to apply that procedure to that detail, which was implicating, may I draw your attention to the fact, as I have said previously, and repeatedly, that certain implicating points have not only been brought to the knowledge of the world when documents were presented, but were repeated under the heading that they were put to the witness, or to the Defendant who was used as a witness.
In that manner the listening world was again and again given the contents of these documents. put yourself behind the furtherance of a just proceeding, which you and the authors of this Charter must have desired, and to give the same opportunities to the Defendant.
In addition, as a reason for this application of Mr. Justice Jackson, it was stated that the point of view of shortening the trial was important. We the Defense do in no way deny the necessity that this trial should be confined to the necessary time. But perhaps I may in this connection draw your attention to a statement of the President at the Belsen trial which he made to the press when the press had criticized the lengthy duration of that proceedings. The sense of that statement was that no matter how long a trial would last, this was not to be regretted, as long as it served the truth and the hearing of the truth. That principle, too, I ask you to put before the time-saving factor in this trial. refer to the extent of the criticism which is stated by the Prosecution, and may I draw your attention to the fact that in connection with the duration of the trial so far, should anybody consider it too long, it is my feeling that it is not too long. At any rate, it was not caused by the Defense. We up to now -- and I think I can say this with a clear conscience -- have not done anything, said anything or caused anything which would give reason for our being accused of delaying this trial, at least not justly. exists which caused the Tribunal originally to order that those parts of documents which were the subject of the trial substance should be presented verbally, then I should like to point out that the most important majority of the documents which were produced at the time and partly presented verbally were even at that time available in the translation, in four languages.