The memorandum which is referred to in the Frederici report is dated later I think, although I don't know offhand.
Q. I think you will find -- I will give you, in a moment, the letter from Siemke, who transmits Hitler's view, and I think you will find that it is this memorandum that Hitler is dealing with. I will show you Frank's memorandum in a moment. I am suggesting to you now, as you say, to Lammers, that you enclose your memorandum and you enclose another memorandum, of which I will read you the essential part in a moment, which is the memorandum of Karl Hermann Frank. But this is a -
A. They are both Frank's memoranda.
Q. No, but look at your own letter of the 31st of August: "Enclosed I send you the memorandum", and you go on: "I enclose another memorandum --which my Secretary of State K.H. Frank has drawn up independently of me --with which I fully agree." I am suggesting to you now that this is your memorandum referred to in the Frederici document, -
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, that is Page 131 of Document Book 12.
Q. (Continuing) -- where General Frederici says: "After ample deliberation the Reich Protector expressed his view about the various plans in a memorandum." I am suggesting to you that this is your memorandum which you sent on to Lammers for submission to the Fuehrer. Are you really going to tell the Tribunal that this isn't your memorandum?
A No, I don't want to say that at all. At the moment I really don't know. I didn't write it, but I obviously agreed with its contents. The letter to Lammers says so. saying that you would have to expel the intelligentsia, except that you were going to break down the Czechs as a national entity and expel the people who would keep going that history and tradition and language? Isn't that why you wanted to expel the intelligentsia?
A I never mentioned the word "destroy".
Q I said "expel" -cooperation. For that reason, if you were to achieve your target, the target of our policy, then the intelligentsia would have to be reduced and their influence would have to be diminished in same way or other, and that was the aim of my explanation.
Q Yes, you said you achieved your policy, but by "achieving your policy you meant to destroy the Czech people as a national entity with their own language, history and traditions, and assimilate them into the Greater German Reich. That was your policy, wasn't it? Czechs, as far as possible. They would have assimilated themselves too, quite automatically, but that was an aim which could only be achieved after generations. First of all, the Immediate aim was to create cooperation and collaboration, so asto have quiet and order. entirely agree, would you look at paragraph 7 of your own memorandum.
SIR DAVID MAXWELLFYFE: My Lord, it is page 113 of Document Book 12-A Q (Continuing): In Section VII you say:
"If one considers the gigantic tasks facing the German nation after a victorious war, the necessity for a careful and rational utilization of Germans will be apparent to everyone. There are so many tasks that have to be tackled at once and simultaneously that a careful, Well thought out utilization of the Germans who are suitable for carrying out these tasks is necessary.
The Greater German Reich will have to make use of the help of foreigners on a large scale in all spheres and must confine itself to appointing Germans to the key positions and to taking over the reins of public administration where the interests of the Reich make it absolutely necessary." Czechs after the war on the basis of the German victory, that is, that they should disappear as a nation and become assimilated to the German Reich. Wasn't that what was in your mind? That wasn't possible at all. But they were to be assimilated as far as possible, and that is what I mean when I use the word "assimilate". the fact that from the racial point of view -- if you want to use that unpleasant expression -- there are a large number of German elements within Czechoslovakia also.
Q Well new, just turn over and see how your State Secretary's memorandum with which you entirely agree, runs.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, your Lordship will find the beginning of that is Enclosure No. 2 on page 115.
Q (Continuing): The State Secretary states his problem. No says, in the second sentence:
"The question as to whether the Protectorate, with a Reich Protector as its head, is suitable for settling the Czech problem and should therefore be retain or whether it should give place to some other form of government is being raised by various people and is the cause of this memorandum. It will briefly "(a) Indicate the nature of the Czech problem;"(b) Analyze the present way in which it is being dealt with;"(c) Examine the proposed alterations from the point of view of their "(d) Express an independent opinion on the whole question."
Well now, I would like you just to look at your State Secretary's independent opinion with which you entirely agree.
THE PRESIDENT: Oughtn't you to read the last two lines?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Oh yes, my Lord, I'm sorry.
"On a correct decision depends the solution of the Czech problem. We thus bear the responsibility for centuries to come."
Now, my Lord, Frank's own opinion starts on page 121 in Section D of the memorandum, and he begins by saying:
"The aim of Reich policy in Bohemia and Moravia must be the complete Germanization of area and people. In order to attain this, there are two possibilities:
"I. The total evacuation of the Czechs from Bohemia and Moravia to a territory outside the Reich and settling Germans in the freed territory, or "II.
If one leaves the majority of the Czechs in Bohemia and Moravia the simultaneous application of a great variety of methods working towards Germanization, in accordance with a plan containing a target year.
"Such a Germanization provides for:
"1. The changing of the nationality of racially suitable Czechs;
"2. The expulsion of racially unassimilable Czechs and of the intelligentsia who are enemies of the Reich, or 'special treatment' for these and all destructive elements;
"3. The recolonizing of the territory thus freed with fresh German blood." BY SIR DAVID MAXWELLFYFE: to concrete suggestions as to this policy of Germanization. Remember that you entirely agree, in your letter to Lammers.
SIR DAVID MAXWELLFYFE: If your Lordship will turn to page 123, there is a heading "Yough".
Q (Continuing): "Fundamental change in education - Extermination of th Czech historical myth."
That is the first poing: Destroy any idea they might have of their great history, from the time of St. Wenceslaus, nearly a thousand years ago. That your first point.
"Education towards the Reich idea - No getting on without perfect knowledge of the German language - First doing away with the secondary schools, later also with the elementary schools - Never again any Czech universities, only transitionally the 'Collegium Bohemicus' at the German university in Prague two years compulsory labor service.
"Lange scale land policy, creation of German strongpoints and German bridges of land, in particular pushing forward of the German national soil from the north as far as the suburbs of Prague.
"Campaign against the Czech language, which is to become merely a dialect as in the 17th and 18th centuries, and which is to disappear completely as an official language.
"Marriage policy after previous racial examination.
"In attempts at assimilation in the Reich proper, the frontier Gaus must be excluded.
"Apart from continuous propaganda for Germanism and the granting of advantages as an inducement, severest police methods, with exile and 'special treatment' for all saboteurs. Principle: 'Pastry and whip'."
What is that? "Zucker, Brot, und Peitsche".
"The employment of all these methods has a chance of success only if a single central Reich authority wish one man at its head controls its planning, guiding, and carrying out. The direct subordination of the 'master in Bohemia' to the Fuehrer clarifies the political character of the office and the task, and prevents the political problem from sinking down to an administrative problem." your job as Reich Protector and Frank should keep his as State Secretary, and the Gauleiter of the Lower Danube shouldn't be able to interfere and take away Braunau as the capital of his Gau.
Defendant, do you tell this High Tribunal, as you told Dr. Lammers, that you entirely agree with what I suggest to you were dreadful, callous, and unprincipled proposals? Do you agree with these proposals?
Q Well, why did you tell Lammers you did? Why, when things were goin well, did you tell Lammers that you did agree with them?
statements which you just made show quite clearly that this first memorandum was written by Frank, who then added the second memorandum to it, and if you say, as you said at the end just now, that to achieve this it was my purpose to remain in office as Reich Protector, then I can only tell you that the purpose in this connection was that Frank was trying to become Reich Protector. certainly no longer identify myself with them today, and on the occasion when I reported to the Fuehrer I didn't identify myself with those contents either, which becomes clear from the testimony which I gave yesterday, because that is just the -
Q (Interposing): I am concerned with what you wrote in 1940 when you wrote -- and I will read the words again; I have read them three times:
"I enclose another memorandum on the same subject question which my Secretary of State, K. H. Frank, has drawn up independently of me" -- "independ ently of me" -- "and which in its train of thought loads to the same result, an with which I fully agree."
A (Interposing): I have just now told you that I can no longer agree with the contents today, and that at the time when I verbally reported to the Fuehrer, I did not adhere to these statements either, but to the contrary, I made a statement as I explained yesterday, to which I received his agreement. Those were my proposals which I made further at the time.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, are these documents correctly copied? You see what in the letter of the 31st of August 1940 there is a reference in the margin, "Enclosure 1; Enclosure 2".
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, my Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Therefore, the letter identifies the document.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, my Lord, that is so. The one is, as I am suggesting, the defendant's; the other is Frank's.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:
wise to the Fuehrer. I suggest to you that that is not true, that is not true that you dealt with them otherwise to the Fuehrer. I am putting it quite bluntly that it is not true.
A In that case I must regret to say that you are lying. I must know whether I talked to the Fuehrer and what I personally, orally reported to him and without Frank.
Q Well now, let us just look at the report, at your report. Your Lordship will find it on page 7.
THE PRESIDENT: Page what?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Page 7. It is document 379 of the same book, GB 521. of October. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:
Q You will remember your letter was the 31st of August. It says: "Regarding the reception of the Reich protector and Secretary of State Frank by the Fuehrer, I have learnt the following from authentic sources:
"To begin with, the Minister of Justice, Gurtner, gave a report on the Czech resistance movement, during the course of which he maintained that the first trial of the four chief ring leaders would shortly take place before the People's Court.
"The Fuehrer objected to this procedure and declared that execution squads were good enough for Czech insurgents and rebels. It was a mistake to create martyrs through legal sentences, as was proved in the case of Andreas Hofer and Schlageter. As/ matter had already entered the path of legal procedure it was to be continued within this form. The trials were to be postponed until after the war, and then amidst the din of the victory celebrations, the proceedi ng would pass unnoticed. Only death sentences could be pronounced, but would be commuted later on to life imprisonment or deportation.
"Regarding the question of the future of the protectorate, the Fuehrer touched on the following three possibilities:
"1. Continuation of Czech autonomy in which the Germans would live in the protectorate as co-citizens with equal rights. This possibility was, however, out of the question as one had always to reckon with Czech intrigues.
"2. The deportation of the Czechs and the Germanization of the Bohemian and Moravian area by German settlers. This possibility was cut of the question too, as its execution would take a hundred years.
"3. The Germanization of the Bohemian and Moravian area by Germanizing the Czechs, that is, by their assimilation. The latter would be possible with the greater part of the Czech people. Those Czechs against whom there were racial objections or who were anti-German were to be excepted from this assimilation. This category was to be weeded out.
"The Fuehrer decided in favor of the third possibility; he gave orders via Reich Minister Lammers, to put a stop to the multitude of plans regarding partition of the protectorate. The Fuehrer further decided that, in the interests of a uniform policy with regard to the Czechs, a central Reich authority for the whole of the Bohemian and Moravian area should remain at Prague.
"The present status of the protectorate thus continues."
And look at the last sentence:
"The Fuehrer's decision followed the linesof the memoranda submitted by the Protector and Secretary of State Frank." document says that after the reception of the Reich Protector and the Secretary of State, the representative of the Foreign Office in your office says that the decision of the Fuehrer followed the lines of the memoranda put forward by you and your State Secretary Frank. Why do you say that I am wrong in saying it is untrue: that a different line was followed by the Fuehrer? It is set out in that document.
A To that I have to give the following reply: following three questions with reference to the protectorate and they are the three possibilities which I had mentioned and proposed. The document also shows, though not directly, that the cause for this Fuehrer conference had been quite a different one originally than only the protectorate.
The Minister of Justice was present and a legal question referring to the members of the resistance movement was the cause for the discussion and Frank went to join it. the memorandum, which I had in my hand, but about the general tendencies and the future of our policy in the protectorate. I had reported to him those proposals which are contained here under one, two and three. At the end it says:
"The Fuehrer's decision followed the lines of the memoranda submitted by the Protector and Secretary of State Frank."
That remark was added by Dr. Ziemke or whoever had written the document but what I said yesterday about the policy that is what is true and even if I have to admit that in the letter of Lammers I did identify myself with the points, it was nevertheless dropped. to last in your memorandum, as opposed to that of Frank, you were putting forward the organization of the Greater German Reich. I take it in this way, that you envisaged yourself that in the event of a German victory in the war the Czech part of Czechoslovakia would remain part of a Greater G erman Reich.
A No, I beg your pardon. It had already been included and it says specifically here that it should remain in that condition as a protectorate but as a separate structure. this was in the autumn of 1940 -- that your policy towards the Czechs was movements in the area. discussion of the handling and treatment of all questions about the German Czech problem? Why did you forbid their discussion? were the causes for this memorandum, namely the problem of individual parts of the protectorate being torn away, the Sudeten country.
That was the purpose of the report to the Fuehrer, as I explained yesterday, so as to put a stop to that discussion once and for all. statements addressed to the Czech population? Let us look at the document. document book 12a. My lord it is GB 522.
It is for distribution through your various office and you say:
"For the motive stated, I order that in future, when arrangements and publications of any kind concerning the German Czech problem are made, the views of the whole population are more than ever to be directed to the war and its requirements while the duty of the Czech nation to carry out the war tasks imposed on it jointly with the Greater Reich is to be stressed.
"Other questions concerning the German Czech problem are not suitable subjects for public discussion at the present time. I wish to point out that, without detriment to my orders, administrative handling and treatment of all questions about the German Czech problem are to be in no way alluded to."
Then the last paragraph:
"Requisite public statements bout the political questions of the protectorate and in particular those addressed to the Czech population are my business and mine alone and will be published in due time." statements to the Czech population? German, particularly because there was some special event which I can no linger remember and it says here -- for causes and for the reason for which this has arisen.
Once again the future of the protectorate was spoken about. Your proposals and Frank's speak for themselves. I want you to help me on one other matter. arose what was to happen to the students? There were about eighteen thousand students who were, of course, out of work because they could not -
A I beg your pardon, just a minute. There were not so many. The maximum was eighteen hundred, all told. your office. According to the note from group 10 of your office:
"According to the data at my disposal the number of students affected by the closure --" I should think that would include high schools as well -"for three years of the Czech universities is 18,998.
"According to the press communications, dated the 21st of this month only 1200 persons were arrested in connection with the events of the leaves 17,800. You were faced with their occupation.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: MyLord, it is page 104, document 3858, GB 523.
A I don't want to deny my official's statement. He must have known better than I, I but I am merely surprised that there should have been 18,000 students in two Czech universities, considering that this was a country with a population of 7,000,000.
THE PRESIDENT: Hadn't you better check that by the original?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My lord, I shall. I am much obliged to Your Lorship. and they are 18, 998, and then there is the check below, and you have to take 1200 off. That leaves 17,800. My Lord, if it were only 1800, the second figure ca could not arise.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, somewhere there must be an error. This would mean that there would be more students per university in Czechoslovakia than there were in Berlin at the best of times. There were a maximum of 8,000 to 9,000 and then here, in the case of a nation of only 7,000,000 there are supposed to be 18,000 students in two universities. This can not be right.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, it may be that there ape three age groups. Your Lordship sees that it is "according to the data at my disposal, the number of students affected by the closure for three years is 18.000." It may be the intake for two years, in addition to present students. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: dealt with by your ministry. It may be that it includes certain high schools, but at any rate, these are your ministry's documents, and I want to know what happened. This was a minute, as I understand it, from Dr. Dennler, who was the head of Group 10 of your office, to Burgdorff, who had a superior position, and, if I may summarize it, the letter of 21 November 1939 suggests that the students should be taken forcibly from Czechoslovakia to the old Reich and put to work in the old Reich, and then, on 25 November, you will notice that the paragraph 2 it says -- The writer, who is Burgdorff, is saying that he is dealing with X119/39, which is Dennler's memorandum, and Burgdorffs says that he does not want them to go into the Reich because at that time there was some unemployment in the Reich, and he suggests that they should be dealt with my compulsory labor on the roads and canals in Czechoslovakia. Now, these were tweo proposals in your office.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My lord, the second one is 3857-PS, which will be GB 524.
BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:
Q What happened to the unfortunate students?
Q Did either of these proposals of Dr. Dennler for forced labor in the Reich of Burgdorff for forced labor in Czechoslovakia, did they come up to you?
Q Did they come to you for decision? knowledge -- that this is the earliest suggestion -- you said it was not put into effect -- but the earliest suggestion of forced labor came from an officer of your department? Do you know of any other department of the Reich that had suggested Forced labor as early as November 1939? made by all your subordinates, then you would no doubt find that there might be one or another suggestion that you had to turn down. A suggestion made by some official does not mean anything at all. says, "According to the documents at my disposal, the figure which will be involved through closing of the universities for three years will be 18,000." It is, therefore, three times 6.000, which is approximately 13,000. ago, but I respectfully agree with you. That is one matter in which we are not in difference.
Well, now, you anderstand what I am suggesting. It is that these proposals germinated in your office because they were quite in keeping with the proposals in the memoranda which I have just read to the Tribunal that you should not only get rid of Czech higher education, but you should have forced labor. Do you remember that was in the State Secretary's memorandum? What I am suggesting is that it was in your department -- the idea of forced labor -- as early as 21 November 1939.
question of fact, that you will perhaps be able to agree with me on reflection. You suggested this morning that the German University in Prague was closed down after the founding of Czechoslovakia after 1919. That is how it came to us. On reflection, do you not know that it continued and that many thousands of students graduated in the German University of Prague between 1919 and 1939 ?
A: Yes, I know. It was a sub-department of the Czech University, a German part of the Czech University, as far as I know.
Q But it continued as a university ?
Q But German students came there and could take their decrees in German? It was a permitted language ? I suggest to you that there are thousands of people who went there from Austria and from the old Reich-- went there as Germans and took their decrees in German. had been closed down by the Czechs, but there were some German department that remained, and there Germans studied.
Q I think the point is clear. I am not going to argue about the actual thing, out there was a German University, where German university students could study, you will agree.
THE PRESIDENT: Do the Prosecution wish to cross-examine further ?
BY MAJOR GENERAL RAGINSKY: did Rosenberg try to intervene in the foreign affairs of Germany ?
A Is that a question ?
Q Would you please tell us in what form this intervention took place ? giving them to me for consideration.
Q All right. Yesterday you stated here that in 1936 you had differences of opinion with Hitler and that in July you asked to be relieved of your duties as a minister. This document was brought hers, but did not you write to Hitler -
and I will read the last sentence of your letter to him :
"It would be better if I were not a minister, but I am always at your service, whenever you wish my advice and experience in the field of foreign affairs."
Did you write these words in your letter to the Fuehrer ? was necessary to cover by diplomatic manipulations the aggressive actions of Hitler, during the invasion of the Sudetenland and so on ? Did you help Hitler ? Is that right ?
A: That is quite a mistake. On the contrary, as I stated her yesterday end today, I was called by Hitler once, and that was on the last day of the Austrian Anschluss. With that my activities came to an end. In 1938, on the other hand, I went to see him, to stop him from starting the war. That was my testimony. Q: I would like to ask you another question concerning the memorandum of Frederici without repeating what has already been said here concerning it. You remember this memorandum well, as it was just presented to the Court a short time ago. In the last sentence of the memorandum of Frederici it is stated that if the direction of the Protectorate is placed in reliable hands and is guided by the order of the Fuehrer of the 16 th of March, the territory of Maravia will become a part of German territory. It was for this purpose that Hitler chose you to be Protector; isn't that so ? A: Not a bit; that was not the reason at all. I described the reason in detail yesterday. Q: All right, we shall not repeat the causes, we have spoken about them yesterday. Well, you deny that you were precisely the man who was supposed to carry through the invasion of Czechoslovakia ? A: Is that supposed to be a question ? Q: Yes, that is a question. A: To that I can only answer by saying "no". Q: All right. Do you admit that you were, in the Protectorate, the representative of the Fuehrer and of the Government of the Reich, and that you were directly subordinate to Hitler ? A: Yes, that is right; it says so in Hitler's decree. Q: Yes, it is stated there. I will not read this decree, in order not to waste time. This decree has already been presented to the Court. Do you acknowledge that all institutions under the authority of the State, with the exception of the armed forces, were obedient to you and were under your leadership ? A: No. I will have to tell you that this, unfortunately, is a mistake. Again, you will wine it in the same decree, dated the 1st of September, 1938. Apart from that, there were numerous other organizations and Reich authorities which were not under my jurisdiction; that is, quite apart from the police.
Q: Well, as far as the police are concerned, we will speak about the separately. However, do you think it is a mistake that the decree does not mention it, or do you interpret the decree otherwise ? I shall read the first paragraph of the decree of the 1st of September. It is stated there that all the institutions in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, with the exception of the armed forces, are subject to the Protector for the Reich, It is also stated that the Protector supervises everything, and that the Projector is to supervise all the administrative activity in the area. As you see, it is stated very bluntly here that all the institutions of the Reich were subordinate to you, while you were subordinate to Hitler. A: To begin with, I shall have to tell you that as to administrative organization, yes; but there were a number of other institutions and departments under the Reich which did not come under my juridiction. For instance, the Four Year Plan. Q: Now let us pass to the question of the police. Yesterday, in answer to a question of your counsel, you stated to the Tribunal that as to this decree of September 1st, signed by Goering, Frick, and Lammers, paragraph 13 was not applicable to you. Let us examine other paragraphs of the same chapter concerning the police.
Paragraph 11 says that the security police in the protectorate of Bohemia end Moravia have to investigate hostile expressions of the population of the Protectorate, inform the Protector for the Reich as well as the subordinate organizations, keep then poster on important events and advise them as to that to do.
the interior of the Reich, the Reichsfuehrer SS, and the Chief of the General Police are to issue legal measures with the knowledge of the protector of Bohemia and Moravia. obliged to let you know about all their measures and, in addition to this, all their administrative and legal acts and measures had been carried out with your knowledge. Do you acknowledge that?
A No; that is not true. First of all, there was an order that they should have informed me, but that was not carried out. Then, a second regulation said that these preventive measures -- or whatever the language was in the document -- were to be carried out with my approval. However, that was never applied.
Q So you deny it ? of March 7, 1946, on this very question ; that is, on the question of the police and to whom it was subordinated.
MAJOR GENERAL RAGINSKY : Mr. President, I present this testimony as USSR EXHIBIT No. 494.
THE PRESIDENT : Is this in the English book as well, do you know ?
MAJOR GENERAL RAGINSKY : No, Mr. President. This document that I am presenting now is an original, signed by Frank. BY MAJOR GENERAL RAGINSKY :
Q Karl Hermann Frank, during an interrogation, testified :
" According to the order on " The Structure of the German Administration in the Protectorate and the German security Police ", all German authorities and institutions, with the exception of the armed forces of the protectorate, as well as all the Police, were formally subordinated to the Reich Protector and were under obligation to fulfill his orders.
Owing to this, the Security Police was to carry out a principal political policy set forth by the Reich Protector. Orders as to carrying out Statepolitical measures were mainly issued by the Central Office of State Security in Berlin through the Heed of the Security Police.
" If the Reich Protector wanted to carry out some state police measures he had to have the permission of the Central Office of State Security in Berlin ; that is, in this case the State Police also submitted each order for approval to the Central Office of state Security in Berlin. The same was true of directives aimed at carrying out State Police measures. These directives were given to the head of the security Police by the Supreme Fuehrer of the SS and Police. " reading now :
" This system of subordination and issuing of directives remained in force during the whole existence of the Protectorate and was used as such by von Neurath in the Protectorate, in general the Reich Protector could, on his own initiative, issue directives to the state Police through the head of the Security Police. However, if these measures were in any way connected with state or political matters, the approval of the Central Office of State Security had to be obtained for carrying them out.
" In regard to the Sd--Security Service -- which had executive powers, the authority of the Reich Protector respecting the issuing of directives to the SD was greater and in no case subject to the approval of the Reich Central Office of State Security."
Do you confirm this testimony of Frank?
Q No, you do not confirm it? which was made last year, during which he said something quite different. He said that the entire police were not under the Reich Protector, but came under the Chief of the Police in Berlin, that is to say, Himmler. I think that testimony can be found somewhere amongst your documents toe.
Q Don't worry about it; I will come back to this testimony.
Tell me, please, who was the political director in your service?
A Political? you to read it. letter to your Secretary of State and to the SS and Police Fuehrer, Karl Hermann Frank. The letter had the following contents:
"In an order of May 5, 1939, the Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia named the SD fuehrer as his political director. I have ascertained that this order has not yet been published or carried out. Please carry out this order. " Signed:
"Dr. Best".
Do you remember your order now?
A. I cannot remember that decree, but I can remember that this was never carried out, because I did not have this SD leader as my political expert.
THE PRESIDENT: This would be a convenient time for the Tribunal to break off.
MAJOR GENERAL RAGINSKY: Mr. President, just one more minute, please, to finish this question, and then we can break off.
BY MAJOR GENERAL RAGINSKY:
Q But did you issue such an order on May 6?