A Yes. In order to save officers, we put civilians in a large number of positions, people who we thought were worthy of our confidence. That job of administering a strong box or carrying the key was the job really of a second adjutant, who later had to be shelved. amount of practice in keeping books.
THE PRESIDENT: If there is anything inaccurate in the document, you can put it to him. But it all is set out in the document, exactly as the admiral said. You are wasting the time of the Tribunal in spying it here.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I believe What Mr. Elwyn Jones presented is also in the document. What matters is the question of interpretation. If I should be mistaken, I beg your pardon. But the witness has been confronted with certain points, and I believed that I had the right in the re-examination also to point out certain paragraphs in the document. I can be very brief.
THE PRESIDENT: If you want to, you can draw our attention to the paragraphs.
THE WITNESS: I can be very brief. looked into the minutes of the conference, which was no verbatim shorthand record but only a personal note for the memory of the adjutant, he, without having taken part in the conference, could never have gotten the correct information. He had no decision in hand as to who should be admitted to see the commander-in-chief, but only the adjutant; that is to say, myself. He could not even knew who could be admitted. It is an incorrect assumption when he says that Hagelin saw Raeder without seeing me first. BY DR. SIEMERS:
Q Do you believe Giese was present when Raeder talked to Hitler?
A Giese? No, never. Giese sat in the ante-room and took care of the telephone calls.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, nobody here suggested that he was. Mr. Elwyn Jones was not putting it that this man Giese was questioned at talks between Raeder and the Fuehrer or Raeder and Hagelin.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, this is his affidavit, and in the affidavit, we read, which I would like to point out,on page 3, he says "According to all I heard, I can say that the idea of this undertaking emanated from Raeder and met with Hitler's joyous agreement."
THE WITNESS: How could he know that? I only know that I as chief of staff was not present at these conferences, and Giese had no other possible source of information than to draw upon his imagination. BY DR. SIEMERS:
Q I come now to Document D 872. That is the war diary of the Naval Attache in Japan, with which you were confronted. But according to it, you should have known that Japan, on the 7th of December, would attack America. The telegram which is mentioned here is of the 6th of December. When could that telegram have arrived in your office?
A You mean when could I have received it personally?
Q Yes; or Raeder? to decide, and he was the one who decided whether for operational reasons that telegram should be presented at once, or not.
Q Admiral, you remember that document?
Q Is Pearl Harbor mentioned in the document?
A No. I tried to explain that, that Pearl Harbor had no connection with that telegram by Admiral Daenecker. It is not identical with it. And Daenecker depended on sources of information, and his assumption was based on this information which I formulated in that telegram, without having any definite evidence.
Such telegrams were received continuously. Sometimes those assumptions were correct; sometimes they were incorrect. negotiations had taken place with Japan. Am I correct in saying that that was only a message about eventualities?
A Yes, of course. I have tried before to explain that there were no military negotiationsbetween general staffs. But the naval attache is charged with transmitting all information, after examination, to us. submitted, but was an interrogation of Raeder of the 10th of November, 1945. May I ask you to look at page 5, at the bottom of that page of the document which I have handed to you, and the passage which is presente d on page 6?
THE PRESIDENT: That ought to have a number, ought it not?
MR. ELWYN:JONES: That will be GB 483, My Lord. BY DR. SIEMERS:
Q On that document, page 5, on the bottom it says Document C 75; that is mentioned?
A I have an English copy -- do you mean the English one?
Q Yes, the English copy because it doesn't exist in German.
A You mean the last paragraph?
Q I believe the last line or the line before the last. The English translation is hard to read. Maybe you have the wrong page.
DR. SIEMERS: In the case of this interrogation, mr. President, we deal with document C 75. I believe the witness will find it right away, Mention has been made of that document recently and, according to the wish of the Tribunal which has been stated recently, I submit C 75; that is Directive 24, about the cooperation with Japan, and the full text is Document Raeder No. 128. The Tribunal will recall that -
THE PRESIDENT: I think it has already been put in. C 75 hasn't it already been put in?
DR. SIEMERS: I submit it now, C 75.
THE PRESIDENT: No, has it already been put in? Has it already been offered in evidence?
DR SIEMERS: You may recall that the Prosecution has submitted Document C 75 as U.S. -
THE PRESIDENT: It has already been put in. It doesn't want a new number, isn't that correct?
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, may I remind you that it needs a new number because only the first part was submitted, the first paragraph.
MR. ELWYN JONES: U.S.A. 151.
THE PRESIDENT: ell, we are not giving fresh numbers, Dr. Siemers, to par of documents which have already been put in. If the document has been put in, then where you want to use a fresh part of the document it has the same number as the old number; that is all.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, but if the Prosecution in their document only puts in the first two paragraphs -
THE PRESIDENT: I know that perfectly well, and you are entitled to put in any part of the document. It is only a question of what number is to be given to it and I thin -- I may be wrong -- that up to the present we haven't given new numbers to documents once that they have been put in although fresh parts of the document are put in.
MR. ELWYN JONES: My. Lord, the position with regard to C 75 is that the whole of the original has been put in as U.S.A. 151 but only an extract from the original was included in the English document which was put before the court.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. All I was concerned with was the number of the thing It has got the number U.S.A. 151 and I thought our practice had been that it should continue to have that number. You can put in any part of it you like, and if it is a question of translation, no doubt the Prosecution will hand it to the translation department and have it translated for you; but you are attempting to give it a new number, that is all.
DR. SIEMERS: I beg your pardon, but I have been asked recently to submit the document anew and that is where the misunderstanding arose. Under these circumstances, now that is hear that it has been submitted entirely, I can withdraw that, I should be grateful if the Tribunal would also receive the complete translation of the document in English and not only the first two paragraphs. BY DR. SIEMERS:
Admiral, have you found it in the meantime?
A Yes. It is on page 7 and I was looking at 5.
Q Well, I apologize to you. It is right, therefore, that the interrogation refers to Document C 75. Document C 75; Admiral, is directive No 24 concerning collaboration with Japan, and it says: Concerning collaboration with Japan, it is necessary to defeat England quickly and thereby keep the U.S.A. out of the war: and besides that, the document also mentions that which I have mentioned recently, that Singapore should be occupied by Japan. Now Raeder, on the 10th of November, 45, has stated his position on that and, according to the next page of the document, he said that which Mr. Elwyn Jones has just put to you. May I ask you to look at it again? It says there, on page -- I thought it was at the top of page 6 Maybe it is page 7.
A The top of page 3. I do not speak English as well as German, but I would translate it as that which Japan needs.
Q If I remember correctly, the word is "needs". Therefore, the conversations mentioned by Raeder were not concerned with strategy points?
A No; that is entirely two different things.
A Yes, purely questions of materials. Discussions of that kind we had with all navies, not only with the Japanese.
Q. Then I come to the Commando order about which you testified already. I want to put to you the following: You have been shown Document 656, which says that according to armed forces reports soldiers were executed and where mention is made of the fact that the soldiers were uniforms and that the order of the Fuehrer was something new in international law. I believe that the Naval Command in Chief in Western France reported that and that is a report by the armed force and that the men who wrote it, who put the entries in the ar Diary wrote a new thing in international law. I should like to ask you, would you consider that a criticism of the order?
A I believe that I have to answer the question in the following manner: Normally, the fact of an execution is not entered in the ar Diary -
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think that is really a matter which we can go into, whether he thinks this is a criticism of the order. BY MR. SIEMERS:
Q It is a question concerning the facts. The Prosecution asserts again that there were soldiers in uniform concerned. The Wehrmacht communique carried information about the execution of the 9th of November and that execution, as I have proved, took place on the 11th of December. I am presenting to you now the Document UK 57, and ask you to look at the second paragraph under Figure 4. The heading is concerned with sabotage against German ships near Bordeaux of the 12th December, 1942, and further on we read: The participants had presented Girond with canons coming from submarines. They carried a special grey uniform. After carrying out the blastings they sank the boats and tried, with the aid of French civilians, to escape to Spain in civilian clothes.
Did those soldiers behave correctly according to international law?
DR. SIEMERS: Then I have no more questions. -- Excuse me, one final question carried out on the order of the Fuehrer directly, was any inquiry made to you on did you receive any information?
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Mr President, the question arose as to whether a document concerning Norway had been translated correctly. I should like to identify the number. The English translation, which I have beforerme. is not identical with the German original. It deviates considerably. It is the Document GB 482.
the English translation.
"The High Command of the Navy states: Conquest of Belgian coast provides no advantage for submarine warfare. In view of Norwegian base (Trojndheim) with the support of pressure from Russia, the Fuehrer will consider question."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kranzbuehler, it would save time really if we have the sentence which is said to have been wrongly translated referred to a committee of experts in the translating division. It is not worth while wasting title over
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: I beg your pardon, I did not know that it should have been examined again.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we had better have it examined and then the translation certified to.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: I beg your pardon, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I, Myself, have a question to the witness BY DR. KRANZBUEHLER:
Q Admiral, the document 873 has been put to you before. That was a war diary of U-71 and was concerned with three Norwegian in a lifeboat. The entry was on the 21st of June. I have already submitted it to the Tribunal under Doenitz No. 13, on page 23 of my document book, a statement by the above-mentioned commanding officer Flaechsenberg. According to that statement, the submarine was put to sea on the 14th of June. It was west of Norway. Can you tell no if that U-boat therefore, on the 21st of June, was putting out for operation or returning from operations?
A You mean from memory?
Q As you know, that submarine was a 500-ton boat. Is a boat of that size in a position to carry out an operation over several weeks with three additional people on board?
A I believe not. I am not enough of an expert in order to decide or judge definitely what an additionaof personnel aboard may mean but, aside from that, I do not believe that such a small boat, which is putting out to sea for a longer operation, can be charged with prisoners. I do not consider that possible.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness canretire.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes, then, with the permission of the Court, the witness may retire.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, according to my statement made at the beginning of this case, I have submitted the majority of my documents already during the testimony. With the permission of the Tribunal, may I proceed now to submit as quickly as possible the remainder of the documents with a few accompanying statements.
I submit to the Tribunal Raeder Exhibit No. .8, an excerpt from the document book 2, page 105, an except from the book which Churchill has written in the year 1935 under the title "Great Contemporaries". I ask the Tribunal to take official notice of the contents. Churchill points out that there are two possibilities that one cannot say whether Hitler will be the man who will start another world war or whether he will be the man who will restore honor and peac for the great German nation and bring it back serene, helpful and strong to the forefront of the European family circle.
As Raeder Exhibit No. 20, I submit a short excerpt from Adolph Hitler's "Mein Kamf", considering that the Prosecution has sail that from that book one could see that Hitler intended to wage aggressive wars. I believe I shall be able to show how much one can see from, that book. I ask to take judicial notice of the short excerpt on page 154. I read: "For such a policy there was but one ally in Europe, England."
Raeder Exhibit No. 21, a speech made by Hitler to the German Reichstag on the 26th April 1942, as evidence to show how liberties were limited in Germany and the dictatorship was strengthening itself. the Hague Convention, about the rights and duties of neutrals in naval warfare, I need that in connection with Raeder Exhibit No. 66, in tin expert statement by Dr. Mosler.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you give us the pages?
DR. SIEMERS: Page 289 in document book 7. It is the first page of the document book No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: Then I ask the Tribunal to be kind enough to take document book No. 5. Here are documents which have already been submitted. I submitted it as Raeder Exhibit No. 100, document book 5 page 437, which is a document from the "White Book" concerning the Hooting of the French General Staff of the 9th of April 1940, top secret, President Daladier, Gamelin the Minister of the Navy, Colonial Minister, the Air Minister. It concerns the suggestion by Daladier to move into Belgium. The suggestion was supported by General Gamelin and also by the Minister for International Defense on War. On page 442 there is mentioned about the march into Holland and finally of the area of Luxembourg. Sir the High Tribunal has knowledge of the details from the discussion of the documents, I should not like to read anything from these documents. I only ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice. I should only like to point out that on page 443 of that very long document, mention is made of the occupation of the Port of Narvik and of the intention to capture the mines of Delavada.
I submit then Raeder Exhibit No. 102, in the same document book page 449. This deals with the order to the Second Belgium Grenedier Regiment of 13 April 1940 concerning information about Allied troops and the establishment of a fortified position. It can be seen from the document that the friendly troops mentioned are the Allies. French document of 16 April 1940 of the High Command of the French Army concerning measures about the rail transportation of French troops into Belgium. documents, which I shall not read in detail.
The same applies in the case of Raeder Exhibit No. 104, document book 5, page 455, which is the order of the second British Division concerning security measures in Belgium of 9 April 1940. There we find a directive similar to the document which has been submitted by the Prosecution. That is a directive to get in touch with Belgium civilian authorities.
Raeder Exhibit No. 105, document book 5, page 459, is the statement of a Luxembourg citizen which shows that 200 men, French soldiers in uniform, seven days before the outbreak of GermanBelgium hostilities, entered Luxembourg in armoured cars. submit anything concerning the character of my client, because I was of the opinion that Admiral Raeder, both at home and abroad, enjoyed sympathy and respect. The first trial brief against Raede made me adhere to that intention. Shortly before the presentation of that trial brief, it was changed, and the now form was considerably more severe, concerning moral accusations which seriously injure Raeder's honor. under these conditions, I ask to be permitted to submit documents which are concerned with the character of Raeder.
That is a letter from Frau von Poser to no. It is not an afficavi and quite purposely I have submitted the original because, in my opinion, it will give a more original impression then an affidavit for which as Counsel I am asking to be granted permission.
Then there is also a longer letter by Professor D. Seilt, who on his own initiative approached me. I submit Raeder Exhibit No. 120, which is also in document book VI, Page 517. I would be grateful to the Tribunal if it would take judicial notice of that letter. In order to save time, since it is ten pages long, I would not like to read it. 526, a letter from Mr. Erich Katz, which I submit with the appendices, and ask that the Tribunal take judicial notice of it, in order to present one of the cases in which Raeder intervened personally, and for personal reasons, by making full use of his influence and position. In this position he intervened for Mr. Katz who had been attacked for being Jewish, and protected him and succeeded in protecting him. Mr. Katz, on his own initiative, has sent me these documents in order to show his gratitude.
Raeder Exhibit 123. I submit a letter from Guenter Jacobson that concerns a similar case. Jacobson was not approaches by me either, but on his own contacted me in order to testify that Raeder intervened for his father, who as a Jew had been accused of race disgrace and sent to a concentration camp hospital, which I believe was still a prison at that time, but he saved him so that Jacobson could emigrate to England, where is is still living now.
I submit as Raeder Exhibit No. 124 an affidavit-
GENERAL RUDENKO: Mr. President, I must make the following statement. All four exhibits mentioned just now by Dr. Siemer are personal letters from various persons to Dr. Siemers. They are not sworn affidavits. They are not interrogations. Therefore those documents have little probitive value, and I wonder whether they ought to be admitted as evidence. Many letters are received, and if they were all to be submitted to the Tribunal, the Tribunal would have great difficulty in establishing the truth and how far they are of probitive value.
In that connection, I personally object to the fact that these documents should be accepted as evidence in Raeder's case.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not think that the matter is of sufficient importance to insist upon the evidence being upon oath. The documents are admitted.
DR. SIEMERS: As Raeder Exhibit No. 124 I submit an affidavit of Konrad Lotter. That is a very short statement, and with the permission of the Tribunal, I should like to read that one page:
"Admiral Raeder has always appeared to me as a man who embodied the best traditions of the old Imperial Navy. This was true particularly in a world-philosophical respect. As a man and as an officer he was at all times the best model imaginable.
"In 1941, when the anti-Christian policy of the Hitler regime commenced with its full might in Vavaria, when Monasteries were closed and in the education of youth the intolerance against every creed became crassly manifest, I sent a memorandum of twelve pages to the Admiral in which I presented to him my arguments against this policy. Admiral Raeder intervened at once. Through his mediation, I was called to the District Leader and Minister of the Interior, Wagner, at Munich. After a series of discussions between the clerical, governmental and party authorities, an agreement was reached which had the result that the school prayer was retained, the crucifix was allowed to remain in the schools, etc., furthermore, 59 priests who had been fined 500 marks each were pardoned.
"The closing down of monastaries was also halted at that time. Gauleiter Wagner had to defend himself" -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) Dr. Siemers, all these documents have been read by us very recently.
DR. SIEMERS: Very well. Then I just ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the remainder.
I submit also the two last documents, Raeder Exhibit No. 125 and Raeder Exhibit No. 126. No. 125 is an affidavit by the former Reich Defense Minister Dr. Otto Gessler, and Raeder No. 26 is an affidavit by the Navy Chaplain Ronneberger. I ask you to take judicial notice of this latter document.
I would like to be permitted to read the short affidavit by Dr. Gessler because it has not only a purely personal part, but also a part which concerns the accusations against Raeder:
"I, Gassier, have known the former Admiral of the Fleet Dr. Raeder personally since about the middle of the 20's when I was Reich Minister of National Defense. Raeder was then Inspector of the Educational System in the Navy. I knew Raeder always as a man of irreproachable, chivalrous disposition, as a dutiful man. As to the subject of the indictment, I know very little.
"Raeder visited me repeatedly after my release from the Gestapo in March 1945 when I was laid up in the Hedwig Hospital in Berlin and he helped also with my removal home, as I was ill and fully exhausted. I also told him then about the ill treatment which fell to my lot, especially the torture. He was obviously surprised and indignant. He said he would report this to the Fuehrer. I asked him at once to refrain from that, for I had been told before the torture, and officially, that all of this was taking place at the explicit orders of Hitler. Moreover I knew definitely that I would immediately be rearrested, as on my release I had to sign the well known declaration (Revers) and could not even obtain a confirmation of my detention in order to get a ticket for my trip home.
"I learned nothing about secret armaments in the Navy, neither during my term of office nor later. During my term of office, until January 1928, Admiral of the Fleet Raeder would not have been responsible either, for he was at that time not Chief of the Naval Command.
"At the time of the National Socialist regime I was partly ignored by my form department and partly snubbed. One of the few exceptions to this was Dr. Raeder.
Before 1939 he invited me three times to a visit on the cruiser Nurnberg, although I refused twice.
During the visit in June 1939, he came to Kiel personally to greet me. At that time we also discussed the political situation. I expressed the apprehension that an attack on Poland would mean a European war. Raeder declared positively that he considered it out of the question that Hitler would attack Poland. When this did happen later, however, I explained this to myself on the grounds that Hitler liked to place even the highest militarists face to face with accomplished facts."
Then there is the statement "under oath" and the signature of the notary.
As to the last Raeder Exhibit, No. 126, Ronneberger, I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it. It is a factual description about questions of the church and the Navy Chaplain's office.
Mr. President, with that, with the exception of three points, I can conclude my case. First and second, there are still two interrogatories missing which have not yet been returned. I ask permission to submit these as soon as I have received them. already been approved, who on account of illness could not appear until now. The British delegation, through Sir David, has been kind enough to agree that if necessary this witness can be interrogated at a later date. May I be permitted to ask the Tribunal to keep this decision open, and if possible to permit that General Admiral Boehm should be questioned at a later date. I want to point out now that it will not be a large complex of questions such as it has been with Admiral Schulte-Moenting, which is already known to the Tribun from the material I have submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 23 May 1946 at 1000 hours.)
THE PRESIDENT: With reference to the documents of the Defendant SeyssInquart, the Tribunal admits the following documents which were objected to:
No. 11, No. 47, No. 48, No. 50, No. 54, and No. 71.
The remainder of the documents which were objected to are rejected. I will enumerate them:
No. 5, No. 10, No. 14, No. 19-B, No. 21, No. 22, No. 27, No. 31, No. 39, No. 55, No. 60, No. 61, No. 68, No. 69.
M. DUBOST (of the French Prosecution): Mr. President, last hight at the end of the session the Defense of Admiral Raeder submitted a certain number of documents including Document 105 of Document Book 5. This document is an excerpt from the German White Book, No. 5. There is the testimony of an aged man, 72 years old, born in Luxembourg, who has lived in Belgium only for the last six months, and who affirms that he met in the month of April, 1940, 200 French soldiers in Belgium. These soldiers, who he said were French, and were with a tank outfit. ment No. 7 of the white Book No. 5, the original of which has never been submitted and is the case with a certain number of documents in the German white Book. formal protest -- very categorically be made against such an assertion. At no time during the invasion of Belgium by the German forces did any French troops enter. The rest of this document, No. 105 of Document Book 5 of Admiral Raeder, gives us to understand whence comes the error which is mentioned in the testimony. bourg and to the question put to him by the German authorities as to whether and how he recognized the soldiers he had seen were French nationality, he answered, "I recognized them as being French soldiers because I know their uniform extrendy well.
Moreover, I recognized the soldiers because of the language they were speaking when they spoke to me." time when these events took place the Belgian Army had a uniform of the same color as the French Army and a sap of the name shape. Now, as far as the language goes, the Tribunal also knows that great part of the Belgian population who live along the Luxembeurg frontier speak French and the Belgian soldiers recruited in those districts speak French themselves. man, had only been living for six months in Belgium and had most probably had a very limited experience with things Belgian -- and especially with the Belgian Army. It any rate, we assert in the name of France and in the name of Belgium that before the 10th of May, 1940, no French troops, organized French troops penetrated into Belgium and that the isolated individuals who did go into Belgium were interned there.
(Dr. Siemers came to the lectern.)
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Siemers?
DR. SIEMERS: If it please the Tribunal, may I just reply very briefly?
This is a document from the white Book. A decision had already been made in this court room and temporarily it had been allowed. I urge that the Prosecution should be made to submit the original, if they deny the correctness of this document. This would be in keeping with a decision of the Tribunal which states that an application was to be made, for the presentation of the original if it were available, or that an application she ld be made to produce the Original from whomsoever possesses it. As far as I know, the Prosecution have the original, since all original documents are located in the Foreign, Office in Berlin, or in the safekeeping department, and since all the originals of these white books were -
THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean by "original"? The original, I suppose, is the original of the white Book. Is that what you mean?
DR. SIEMERS: Yes, I now mean the original of this record, this court record.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, this comes from a White Book. That is a printed document, I suppose. I don't suppose it contains the original of the statement of this Luxembourg man.
DR. SIEMERS: The White Book is a collection of numerous -- countless -documents, and the individual documents, in turn, are in the possession of the Foreign Office and partly they had been in the files of the General Staff of France and partly they had been records of court proceedings.
THE PRESIDENT: Monsieur Dubost, you aren't urging that we should strike the document out, but the Tribunal will certainly take into account the facts to which you have drawn our notice.
M. DUBOST: This is a request to obtain from the Tribunal that document. At the same time there is a protest against the assertion made by the Defense that French soldiers violated the Belgian neutrality in the course of the month of April. I hope the Tribunal will allow me to aid them in making their decision.
The White Book, which we have right here, is made up of two parts. The first part reproduces texts and the second part gives photostat copy of these texts. In the first Part, which simply reproduces the text, is found the document which I ask the Tribunal to strike from the record. We have looked in the second part which reproduces the photostat copies of the document, of the first part, and we do not find it. We state to the Tribunal that the original of the document, which we ask the Tribunal to put aside, has not been reproduced in the German white Book, since it is not to be found in the second part.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I believe that Monsieur Dubost's entire explanation refers to the question of evidentiary value of the document and not the matter of its admissibility. The fact that this document is in order appears to be quite clear, since it is the record of court proceedings where a certain personality, Conjener, was interrogated or examined. Everything said by Monsieur Dubost refers to the contents of the document, therefore the question of its value as evidence. May I ask, therefore, that the document be admitted, as it has up to now, and may I ask you to take into consideration that the document has value in connection with other points which Dr. Horn and I respectively have submitted in our document books regarding Holland and Belgium.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Siemers, and monsieur Dubost, the Tribunal will consider the objection that has been made.
DR. SIEMERS: May I merely mention, Dr. President, that if the photostat copy to which Mr Dubost is objecting isn't contained in the book, then this is due to the fact that this court in its original form was German and that the facsimiles of the book are those prepared according to the original text in French that is to say, those documents which in their original version were in French. If necessary, I would refer to a witness, Geheimrat von Schnieden, with reference to this record, since he at the time had been informed about all the records of this type and worked -- cooperated -- when the book was compiled.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider the matter.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER (Counsel for Defendant Doenitz): Mr. President, with the permission of the Tribunal I should like to submit the interrogatory put to the Chief of the American Naval Staff, Admiral Nimitz, which I received the day before yesterday and which I have since submitted to the interpreters for translation. With the permission of the Tribunal, I should like to read it right now, after the cases for Doenitz and Raeder -
THE PRESIDENT: Have the Prosecution seen it?
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got copies for us?
DR. KRAZBUEHLER: I had been informed that the copies fot the Tribunal had been passed to the General Secretary.
THE PRESIDENT: Unless we have copies, the document must not be read. Itt must be put off until we have copies.
DR. KRANZBUELER: There are two copies in English and one in French.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kranzbuehler, the Soviet members of the Tribunal do not have a copy of the document, translated in their language, so you will present it at a later date.
Will the Counsel for the Defendant von Schiracht present his case?
DR. SAUTER (Counsel for the Defendant von Schiracht): Gentlemen of the Tribunal, to start with, I propose to carry out the examination of the Defendant von Schiracht himself, and as this examination proceeds and as the individual points develop, I propose to refer to the corresponding parts of the document book and bring them to your knowledge. After the examination of the Defendant I shall then call, my four witnesses and at the end I intend to submit the remaining documents, in so far as these documents have not by that time been presented during the examination of the Defendant von Schiracht. I presume, Dr. President, that you are agreeable to this procedure. as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q ill you repeat the following oath after me: truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sis down. BY. DR. SAUTER:
Q Witness, what is the date of your birth?