THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, as I have what the Tribunal wanted to know was the apportionment, and presumably you have some apportionment which adds up to the twenty days which you say is required, and the Tribunal would like, if you have such an apportionment, that you should let them see the apportionment, or if you have no such apportionment, then they would wish to hear from each individual counsel how long he thinks he is going to take. If you lave got a list, it seems to the Tribunal that you could hand it in.
DR. NELTE: This information is available and it will be handed to the Tribunal. Estimates are available, but certain of my colleagues have stated that these estimates of theirs are only applicable under the reservation that only a certain number of days were to be granted. That attitude adopted, of which I have said earlier that it is diverse in a certain respect from, mine, but it was our undivided opinion that the decision of the Tribunal was only a suggestion and not a maximum which could be apportioned. I hope, Mr. President, that the words which I have just spoken are to be understood similarly, namely, that the Tribunal will still consider whether the propsed period of fourteen days could not correspondingly be extended to the time which we consider necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: What the Tribunal wants is an apportionment of the time as between the various counsel. What is what they asked for, and that is what they want; and either we would ask you to give it to us in writing now, or we would ask you, each one of you, to state how long you anticipate you will take in your speech.
DR. NELTE: I think that I an speaking on behalf of my colleagues when I say that we shall submit to the Tribunal in writing what out estimates are.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, the Tribunal feels that it would like to have the apportionment now. It gave notice before, yesterday I think it was, that they were wishing to hear defendants' counsel upon the question of the apportionment this afternoon at 2;00 o'clock, and they would, therefore, like to have that apportionment now.
DR. NELTE: In that case, I can only ask that you should hear each individual defendant's counsel, since, naturally I can not by memory tell you how each individual has made his estimate.
THE PRESIDENT: It need not be written. It was to be written down, but if you haven't got it written down, no doubt you can't remember it. Perhaps you had better give us what you would take.
DR. NELTE: I have proposed seven hours. Colleague Horn, for Ribbentrop, just tells me six hours.
THE PRESIDENT: He will take each counsel in turn, if you please.
Yes, Dr. Stahmer.
DR. STAHMER: Seven hours.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter.
DR. HORN: May I speak on behalf of Dr. Siemers and Dr. Kranzbuehler, and ask to allot each of them eight hours.
DR. SAUTER: For the case of Funk, six hours, and for the case of von Schirach, six hours.
DR. SERVATIUS: Servatius; for Sauckel, five hours.
THE PRESIDENT: I can't write as quickly as all that. The was it that Dr. Horn wished to represent?
DR. HORN: Dr. Siemers and Dr. Kranzbuehler, eight hours each.
DR. KAUFMANN; for Kaltenbrunner, approximately four to five hours.
DR. MARX: Dr. Marx; for Streicher, four hours.
DR. SEIDL: Dr. Seidl; for Hess and Frank together, eleven hours.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Dr. Pannenbecker; for Fritsche, five hours. wants three hours for Bormann. Dr. Bergold isn't present, but I do remember that on the list it said three hours.
DR. DIX: Dr. Dix; for Schacht. We will need five hours.
DR. EXNER: Dr. Exner; for Jodl, five hours.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Dr. Kubuschok; for Papen, approximately five hours.
DR. STEINBAUER: Dr. Steinbauer; for Dr. Seyss-Inquart, five hours.
DR. FLAECHSNER: Dr. Flaechsner; for Speer, four hours.
INTERPRETER: Perhaps, my Lord, of counsel would continue and speak loudly I could continue giving you the figures until Channel 1 is fixed.
PRESIDENT: If you would go on giving the figures, we'll continue.
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN (Vounsel for Von Neurath): For myself, Mr. President, I shall require approximately 8 hours. For Professor Jahrreiss, who will speak in all cases, and will treat considerably longer subjects, 4 hours, something which has been approved by the Tribunal, namely that he would treat the entire complex from the point of view of International Law.
DR. SEIDL: The Defense Counsel for the Defendant Rosenberg has stated that he would require 8 hours.
DR. FRITZ (Counsel for Fritsche): For Herr Fritsche, will you please take into consideration that the case Fritsche has not yet been presented and with that limitation, I think I should have sufficient time with approximately 4 hours.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Nelte, the Tribunal would like to know first of all whether counsel proposes to write down and then read their speeches. Can you hear what I am saying?
DR. NELTE: Yes, I can. As far as I have been informed, all defense counsels will first of all write down their case. Whether they will actually read every work of these written statements or whether they will only present parts of it and use other parts which they have not written down, or whether they will submit them and not read them has not yet been ascertained.
THE PRESIDENT: Have they considered whether they will submit them for translation because as the Tribunal has already pointed out, it would be much more convenient for the members of the Tribunal who do not read German to have a translation before them. It would not only greatly assist the Tribunal, but the defendants themselves if they do that.
DR. NELTE: This question has not yet been decided upon. It has been discussed in our conferences, but up to now no final result has yet been achieved. We believe that the time, which is now pressing very much, may possibly make it impossible that this script should be translated into all 4 languages.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal of course understands that the speeches, if they are submitted for translation, won't be communicated to anybody until the speech is actually made.
They won't be given beforehand either to the Tribunal or the Prosecution so that the speech will remain entirely secret until it is made, and the second thing is that of course, a great number of the speeches will be delayed by the counsel who precede them and therefore, there will be very considerable time during either the 14 days or a longer period if such a longer period is given, which will enable the speeches to be translated, and Defense counsel will appreciate that if their speeches are written down they can tell exactly how long they will take to deliver them, or almost exactly. And there is one other thing I want to bring to their attention. which are common to them all, and there ought to be an opportunity for counsel to divide up the subjects to some extent between them and not have each one dealing with subjects which have been dealt with already, any more than they should be dealt with in evidence over and over again, and I don't know whether counsel for defense has considered this. Anyway, the Tribunal hopes that they will adjust their minds to these three matters. the Tribunal; secondly, whether they will be able to ascertain the time, and thirdly, whether they cannot apportion the subjects to some extent among them so that we shan't have to listen to the same subjects over and over again.
I don't know whether the Prosecution would wish to say anything. The Tribunal has said, in the order which we made in reference to this question of limitation of time, that the Prosecution should only take three days. Perhaps it would be better to hear from the Prosecution whether that is an agreeable estimate.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, My Lord, Prosecution do not ask for any more than 3 days. It might considerably be little less, but no more.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I should like, your Honor, to call your attention to this. I hope it isn't expected that we are expected to mimeograph, or to have mimeographed, our speeches of 20 days. We simply cannot be put under that sort of consideration.
A citizen of the United States in the highest court of the land is expected to argue his case in one hour, and we have already been highly criticized for the length of time that we have taken. This is not a sensible amount of time to give to this case, and I must protest against being expected to mimeograph 20 days of speeches. It really isn't possible.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know whether the Prosecution intend to let us have copies of their speeches at the time that they are delivered?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: As far as the speeches of the Attorney General are concerned, we certainly did expect to give the Tribunal copies of the speech.
THE PRESIDENT: And translations?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, that would be done. I just wanted to point out, I think it was Dr. Nelte who said that it would take a long time to translate these speeches. As far as that goes, we had the problem of translating 76 days of speeches and that was done in 1 day by our own translators. Perhaps Dr. Nelte was a little pessimistic about that part of the problem.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the matter.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think perhaps, Your Honor, the photographs which were submitted in evidence are not quite clear if the record does not show the description of them. I shall read it briefly. It is a description of torture cabinets which were used in the foreign workers camp in the grounds of No. 4 Armour Shop, and those of the dirty neglected Russian Comp, were shown to us and we depose the following on oath:
"Photograph 'A' shows an iron cupboard which was specially manufactured by the firm of Krupp to torture Russian civilian workers to an extent that cannot be possibly described by words.
Men and women were often locked into a compartment of the cupboard, in which hardly any man could stand up, for long periods. The measurements of this compartment are height 1.52 meters, breadth and depth 40 to 50 centimeters each. Frequently even two people were kicked and pressed into one compartment.
"Photograph "B" shows the same cupboard as it looks when it is locked.
"Photograph "C' shows the cupboard open.
"In photograph 'D' we wee the camp that was selected by the Krupp Directorate to serve as living quarters for the Russian civilian workers. The individual rooms were 2 to 2.5 meters wide, 5 meters long, and 2 meters high. In each room up to 16 persons were accommodated in double tier beds".
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, one moment. I think you ought to read the last three lines of the second paragraph, beginning, "At the top of the cupboard."
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: "At the top of the cupboard, there are a few sievelike air holes, through which cold water was poured on the unfortunate victims during the ice-cold winter."
THE PRESIDENT: I think you should read the last three lines of the penultimate paragraph in view of what the defendant said about the evidence.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: "We are enclosing two letters which Camp Commandant Lowenkamp had smuggled out of prison in order to induce the undersigned Hoffer to give evidence favorable for him."
And perhaps I should read the last:
"The undersigned, Dahm, personally saw how three Russian civilian workers were locked into the cupboard, two in one compartment, after they had first been beaten on New Year's night 1945. Two of the Russians had to stay the whole of New Years' night locked into the cupboard, and cold water waspoured over them as well." different statements and depositions relating to the investigation of this camp. I am not suggesting offering them, because I think they would be cumulative, and I shall be satisfied with one more, D-313, which would become Exhibit 901, which is a statement by a doctor.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, was this camp that you are referring to a concentration camp?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, it was, as I understand it, a prisoner of war camp and a labor camp. There were labor camps and prisoner ofwar camps at Essen. I had not understood that it was a concentration camp, but I admit the distinction is a little thin at times.
The document reads:
"I, the undersigned, Dr APOLINARY GOTOWICKI, a doctor in the Polish army, was taken prisoner by the Germans on 3 Jan 1941 and remained as such until the entry of the Americans. I gave medical attention to the Russian, Polish and French prisoners of war., who were forced to work in various places of Krupps factories.
I personally visited the Russian P.W. camp in the Raumastrasse in Essen, which contained about 1800 men. There was a big hall in the camp which could house about 200 men comfortably in which 300 to 400 men were thrown together in such a catastrophic manner that no medical treatment was possible. The floor was cement and thepailliasses on which the people slept were full of lice and bugs. Even on cold days, the room was never heated and it seemed to me as a doctor, unworthy of human beings that people should find themselves in such a position. It was impossible to keep the place clean because of the overcrowding of these men who had hardly room to move about normally. Every day, at least 10 people were brought to me whose bodies were covered with bruises on account of the continual beatings with rubber tubes, steel switches or sticks. The people were often writhing with agony and it was impossible for me to give them even a little medical aid. In spite of the fact that I protested, made complaints and was often interviewed, it was impossible for me to protect the people or see that they got a day off from work. It was difficult for me to watch how such suffering people could be dragged to do heavy work. I visited personally, and myself in danger, gentlemen of the Krupp Administration as well as gentlemen from the Krupp Directorate to try to gethelp. It was strictly forbidden as the camp wasunder the direction of the SS and Gestapo, and according to well known directives, I had to keep silent, otherwise I could have been sent to a concentration camp. I have brought my own bread innumerable times in order to give it to the prisoners as far as it was possible, although bread was scarce enough for me. From the beginning in 1941 conditions did not get better but worse. The food consisted of watery soup which was dirty and sandy and often the prisoners of war had to eat cabbage which was bad and stank. I could notice people daily who on account of hungeror ill-treatment, were slowly dying. Dead people often lay for 2 or 3 days on the beds until their bodies stank so badly that fellow prisoners took them outside and buried them somewhere. The dishes out of which they ate were also used as toilets because they were too tired or too weak from hunger to get up and go outside. At 3 o'clock, they were wakened. The same dishes were then used to wash in and later for eating out of. This matter was generally known. In spite of this it was impossible for me to get even elementary help or facilities, in order to get rid of these epidemics, illnesses or cases of starvation.
There can be no mention of medical aid, for the prisoners. I never received any medical supplies myself. In 1941, I alone had to look after these people from a medical point of view, but is is quite understandable that it was impossible for me, as the only one, to look after all these people and apart from that I had scarcely any medical supplies. I could not think what to do with a numberof 1800 people who came to me daily crying and complaining. I myself often collapsed daily and in spite of this I had to takeeverything upon myself and watch how people perished and died. A report was never made as to how the prisoners of war died.
"I have seen with my own eyes, the prisoners coming back from Krupps and how they collapsed on the march and had to be wheeled back on barrows or carried by their comrades. It was in such a manner thatthe people came back to the camp. The work which they had to perform was very heavy and dangerous and many cases happened where people had cut their fingers, hands or legs. These accidents were very serious and the people came to me and asked me for medical help. But it wasn't even possible for me to keep them from work for a day or two, although I had been to the Krupp directorate and asked for permission to do so. At the end of 1941, two people died daily and in 1942 the deaths increased to three and four per day.
I was under Dr. MAY and I was often successful in getting him to come to the camp to see the terrible conditions and listen to the complaints, but it was not even possible forhim to get medical aid from the Medical Department of the Wehrmacht or Krupps, or to get better conditions, treatment or food. I was a witness during the conversation with some Russian women who told me personally that they were employed in Krupps factory and that they were beaten daily in the most bestial manner. The food consisted of watery soup which was dirty and unedible and its terrible smell could be noticed from a distance. The clothing was ragged and torn and on their feet they had rags and wooden shoes. Their treatment, as far as I could make out, was the same as that of the prisoners of war. Beating was theorder of the day. The conditions lasted for years, fromthe very beginning until the day the American troops entered. The people lived in great anxiety and it was dangerous for them to describe to anyone anywhere these conditions which reigned in their camps.
The directions were such that they could have been murdered by anyone of the guards, the SS or Gestapo if they noticed it. It was possible for me as a doctor to talk to these people; they trusted me and knew that I as a Pole, would never betray them to anyone.
Signed: Dr APOLINARY GOTOWICKI" BY MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: in your judgment, to the fact that bombing took place and the billets of the prisoners and workers were destroyed.
A That is true, but that doesn't mean that such conditions, if they should really be true, could be considered as general.
Q I'm sorry. My device has been turned to the wrong dial and I didn't get that. Would you give me that answer again. such as are described in this affidavit cannot be considered as being general. Apart from that, I don't believe that the matters contained herein are true, but I can't speak about that because you can't expect me to knew the details of the goings on in the firm of Krupp. billet forced workers and prisoners of war so close to military targets as these prisoners were?
A I don't want to tell you a certain number of things which every German has at heart Non-military targets were attacked.
Q You wouldn't consider the Krupp plants proper targets?
A The camps weren't in the Krupp works. They were near the town of Essen. On principle, we didn't construct camps near the works because we expected that they would be bombed, and because we didn't want the camps to be destroyed. the camp directly against the works?
(The photograph was shown to the defendant.
A. On this photograph it is recognizable that some large factory is in the background, but that does not alter my statement, namely, that almost exclusively we constructed the camps outside the works. I don't knew how this can be the case in this particular instance, and I can not say whether it is a camp or just changling barracks. It might have been anything left there in the proximity of the camp. I still believe that these cupboards war ordinary cupboards, and this is one of the many barracks that were necessary for the workers to change in before and after work. The fact that these are wardrobes and not any special cupboards is something that any expert in Germany will confirm because this is a mass produced article. In favor of this i the fact that there are airhole vents at the top, just as every wardrobe has such ventilation holes for air intake and outlet.
Q. As Production Minister, you were vitally interested in reducing the sickness rate among workers were you not?
A. I was interested in seeing that the output was high, and part of that in special cases -- this, too -
Q. Well, special cases -- Part of production in all cases is dependent upon the sickness rate of your labor force, isn't it, and is it not a fact that, as a man engaged in production, the two greatest difficulties in manpower and production are sickness and rapid turnover, and that thosefactors reduce production?
A. These two factors were disturbing us, but they were not actually so extensive as appears to be the case from your words. Sickness presented a a very small percentage and in my opinion, that percentage was a small one. Propaganda pamphlets dropped from aircraft were asking the workers to fake illnesses, and detailed instructions were given to the workers on just how one could fake illnesses. Against that the authorities concerned introduced certain measures, which I considered proper.
Q. What were those measures?
A. I am not tell you in detail because these penalty measures were not written by me, nor did I have the necessary power, but as far as I knew, it was done by the Plenipotentiary for Manpower, in collaboration with the police authorities or the authorities of the state, but the jurisdiction in this connection was that of the authorities who were responsible for penal actions.
Q. Now, if you do not know what they were, how can you tell us that you approved of them? We always get to this blank wall that nobody know what was being done. You knew that they were at least penalties of great severity, didn't you?
A. If I say that I approved, then I want to say that I do not want to dodge my responsibility here. You must understand that a minister of production, particularly in connection with air attacks, has a tremendous task before him and that I had to take care of that. I could only take care of matters outside my own particular sector is some special circumstances arose, some particularly serious circumstances forced me to do it. Otherwise, I was glad if I could settle my own work, and, after all, my taks was by no means a small one. the British Minister of Production whether he had shared the worries of the Minister of Labor and whether he was taking care of the other man's worries, then the British Minister of Production would probably have told you that he had something else to do, that he had to keep his production going and that he had to wait and she what the Minister of Labor would do in his sphere, and no one would raise a direct accusation against the British Minister of Production for not caring about the other matters too.
Q. Production was your enterprise, and do you mean to tell me that you did not have any records or reports on the condition of the manpower which was engaged in production which would tell you if there was anything wrong in the sick rate or anything wrong in the general conditions of the labor?
A. What I heard is contained in Central Planning. There you will get a reflection of what I have heard, though there were many other meetings too. I can not tell you in detail what I did know, because these were things which did not come within my sphere of activity, but it is a matter of course that if you are engaged in one task of the state, you will also hear a certain amount about the things that border your sphere and that you will hear a cer certain amount about the things that border your sphere and that you will hear a certain amount of other matters, but the facts are that if such deficiencies do not fall into one's duties, one does not have the duty to pursue them, and later on you do not, of course, remember in detail about what you have heard, but if there is any particular passage, I shall be delighted to give you information on it.
Q. All right; assume that these conditions had been called to your attention and that they existed. With whom would you have taken it up to have them corrected? What officer of the government?
A. In normal circumstances, a minister would act like this: He would sned the document to the authorities who were responsible. I will say that if I heard of such deficiences, I would try to stop them, and I would normally have gone directly to the officer concerned. That was either the German Labor Front, with which I had a liaison officer, or it was handled through my labor department to Sauckel. sidered the matter as having been taken care of, and I could not, of course, chase after every such thing and make further inquiries as to whether it had been dealt with or not.
Q. With the Krupps then you would not have taken it up? You think they had no responsibility for these conditions?
A. In the case of Krupp, in visits to Krupp there were certainly discussions about the conditions that would generally exist for workers after air attacks. That was one of our greatest worries, particularly with reference to Krupp, and about that I was most efficiently informed, but there was no difference made for Krupp, and I can not remember that I was told that foreign workers or prisoners of war were in a particularly bad condition. Temporarily they were all in a bad way, in a very rimitice condition. German workers were lying in cellars during those days, and in a small cellar room, six or eight people would be quartered.
Q. Your statement sometime ago that you had a certain responsibility as a minister of the government for conditions -- I should like to have you explain a little further what responsibility you referred to when you say you assume responsibility as a member of the government.
A. Do you mean the declaration I made yesterday?
Q. What do you mean by, Your common responsibility, along with others?
A. Oh, yes. In my opinion, in the life of the state, there are two types of responsibility. On is the responsibility one has for one's own sector and for that, of course, one is fully responsible. Over and above that it is my own personal opinion that with reference to utterly decisive matters, there is total responsibility; there must be total responsibility. Insofar as a person is one of the leaders, because who else could assume responsibility for the development of events, if not the immediate associates who work with and around the head of the state? affairs. It can not be applied to the handling of details which have occurred in the spheres of influence of other ministries or other responsible sources, because otherwise the entire discipline of the life of the state would be completely muddled up, and no one would ever know who is individually responsible in his sphere of influence. These spheres must be cleanly divided.
Q. Your point is, I take it, that you as a member of the fovernment and a leader in this period of time, acknowledge a responsibility for its large policies, but not for all the details that occurred in their execution. Is that a fair statement of your position?
A. Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think that concludes the cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the other Prosecutors wish to cross examine? BY GENERAL RAGINSKY:
Q. Defendant Speer, when you told your biography to the Tribunal and answered the questions of Justice Jackson, you omitted some substantial things from your biography. I would like to ask you a few questions.
A. I have left out such points as I did not wish to contest, as they are contained in the documents, and I would have one awful job if I were to go into all of these points in detail.
Q. I would like to recall those details, and I would like to ask you to answer shortly.
position, you were also the personal adjutant to Hitler? Have you held this position?
Q Have you been General Inspector of Roads?
A Only after Dr. Todt's death
Q Yes, of course. General inspector of Roads and Production?
Q General Plenipotentiary for the four Year Plan?
Q The Director of the Todt Organization? Socialist Party?
Q The leader of the union of National Socialist Technicians? positions?
A Oh, I had about ten or twelve positions. I don't want to give you a list of them all.
Q Have you been on e of the leaders of the German House of Culture?
A No, that is not true. No, No; I can not tell you for certain, but I think there I was a senator or something like that. Culture? and Architecture?
Q I shall not mention the other posts that you have had. Do you remember the position you took in the interrogation by Colonel Rosenblith in 1945?
your answer was correct. It was a question of whether you acknowledged that in his book "Mein Kampf" Hitler stated bluntly what his aggressive plans were with respect to the countries of the East and the West and, in particular, with respect to the Soviet Union. You answered, "Yes, I acknowledge it." Do you remember that?
Q And do you confirm that now?
Q You do not confirm that now? that I had not read all of "Mein Kampf". I thought I would feel a little silly about that.
Q All right, we shall not waste time. You were ashamed, and now you are not ashamed. Let's go to another question.
Q Maybe you are cheating now?
Q You worked oj the staff of Hess, didn't you?
Q You were collaborating with Ley?
as you stated here today; you said that today inCourt.
A That wasn't a very high rank, though; it wasn't in any way corresponding to the position which I occupied in the State.
I repeats; you were the Plenipotentiary for Hess, and you worked with Ley in the Labor Front.
We willnot discuss the fact as to whether it was a very high rank or not, but you did have a rank in the Nazi Party.
Yesterday, in Court, you said that you were one of Hitler's close friends. You now want to say that so far as the plans and intentions of Hitler were concerned you only learned about them from the book Mein Kampf?
A I can give youan explanation in that connection. I was in close contact with Hitler, and I heard his personal views. These views of his did not lead one to the conclusion that he could have had any of the plans as of the period in these document here. I was particularly satisfied, in 1939, when the non-aggressive pact with Russia was signed, for instance. After all, your diplomats must have read Mein Kampf too, and in spite of that they did sign that non-aggression pact. I am sure they were more intelligent than I am in political matters. who did not; that is irrelevant.
So you contend that you did not know anything about Hitler's plans?
Q All right, please tell us this. As the leader of the Technical Department of the Nazi party, what were the tasks of this institution?
A In the Party? main technical leadership group of the Nazi Party.
A I onlytook over that task in 1942; and in 1942, during the war, there wasn't any task for this Chief Department of Technology of the NSDAP.
my ministry by me, and there I had them work in a capacity for theState. Detailed information about this will be given to you by the written testimony of a witness by the name of Sauer, and that is contained in my document back. That document book also contains a decree issued by me, which came out at the end of 1942, in which I ordered the transfer of these tasks to the apparatus of the State.
Q But youdid not answer my question. In order not to lose time, I will read what Sauer said on this question, and you will please state whether it is correct or not correct. Party, Sauer said that the task of the Main Technical Office inthe Party was a united leadership of technical organizations to serve the German Nation on scientific, special, and political questions. It was apolitical organization, was it not?
Q A technical organization, which was busy with political questions? and which was partlyquoted here there are indications concerning the tasks of the Main Technical Office. From one document it is obvious that the technical deliberationswere to incorporate National Socialist thinking among engineers, and that this organization was also a political one, and not a technical one.
A Where does it say so" May I have the document please?
Q Of course; the document book of the defense. *---* it to you, and you will have it. You will soon see the structure. that it is the organization book of the NSDAP.
Q Yes; that is the structure of the Kreisleiter of the NSDAP. That is document 1893-PS, whichhas been presented by your defense counsel.
Technology in the NSDAP did not have a political task. That is something which I have made the subject of an extract of this organization, the handbook of the NSDAP, and I would not have included it in my document book if I hadn't had the precise impression that, particularly from that extract, it appears, contrary to all other countries, that the Chief Department of Technology had a non-political task within the Party. political organization?
Q Could the leaders of this Union not be members of the Nazi Party?
A They didn't have to be members. As far as I know, I never paid any attention as to whether they were members or not.
THE PRESIDENT: Shall we adjourn now?
(A recess was taken.) BY GENERAL RAGINSK Y: Was the search for new sources of raw materials included in your aims? was the search for new sources of raw materials included in the aims or problems of the Central Planning Board?