As to the bullet cases, we did indeed discover, during the exhumation, pistol bullet cases of German origin, for on the cases we found the trademark G-o-c-o, Goco.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: I will now read an original German document and I beg the permission of the Tribunal to submit a series of documents which have been offered us by cur American colleagues and are submitted as USSR Exhibit 507. It concerns German correspondence on Katyn, and these telegrams are sent by an official of the Government General. connection with the bullets discovered in the mass graves. I quote: The telegram as addressed to the government of the Government General and to the First Administrative Councillor in Krakow. It is marked "Secret".
"Part of the delegation of the Polish Red Cross returned yesterday from Katyn The collaborators of the Polish Red Cross have brought with thorn the bullet cases which were used during the shooting of the victims of Katyn. It appears that those are German, munitions. The caliber is 7.55. They are from the firm Goco. A letter follows."
It is signed "Heinrich". BY COLONEL SMIRNOV: same caliber and did they boar the mark of the same firm? bullet wounds were 7.65 caliber. The cases discovered during the exhumation did indeed boar the trademark of the firm Coco. tissues of the bodies and of the inner organs of the corpses exhumed in the graves of Katyn. were in a good state of preservation. The muscles of the body and of the members had kept their structure.
The muscles of the 2 July A LJG 13-4 heart had also kept their characteristic structure.
The substance of the brain had, in some cases, been subject to certain modification. In most eases, it had kept its structural characteristics quite definitely, especially in the gray and white tissues.
Changes in the inner organs referred mainly to the diminution of size.
The hair from the head could be separated from the skin with little effort.
Q. During the examination of the corpses, to what conclusion did you come as to the date of death and date of their burial?
A. On the basis of the experience I have gained, and that of the other members of the commission -
Q. One moment, witness. I would like you to tell the Tribunal briefly what exactly is that experience, and how many corpses were exhumed personally by you or with your personal intervention on various occasions?
A. In the course of the great national war I had occasion to be medical legal expert during the exhimation and the examination of corpses of the victims shot by the Germans. These executions occurred in the town of Kasnodar and its neighborhood, in the town of Kharkov and its neighborhood, in the town of Smolensk and its neighborhood, in the so-called death camp of Maidanek, Lublin so that in general, and with my personal cooperation, more than five thousand corpses were exhumed and examined.
Q. Therefore, basing yourself on an objective observation to what conclusion did you arriave as to the date of the death and the burial of the victims of Katyn?
A. What I have just said also applies to very many of my colleauges who participated in this work. The entire commission came to the unanimous conclusion that the burial of the Polish officers in the Katyn burial grounds was carried out about two years ago, if you count from January, the month of January 1944, that is to say in the autumn, the fall of 1941.
Q. Does the condition of the corpses give any possibility for you to say that they were buried in 1940, objectively speaking?
A. A comparative medical, scientific examination of the corpses buried in the woods of Katyn, when confronted with the modification and changed which were noticed by us during former exhumations on other occasions, and also material evidence, allowed us to come to the conclusion that the date of the burial could not have happened previous to the autumn of 1941.
Q. Therefore, the year 1940 us excluded?
A. Yes, it is completely excluded.
Q. As far as I understand you, besides Katyn, you were also medical legal expert in the case of other shootings in this district of Smolensk?
A. From the district of Smolensk and its environs and with my personal participation 1,173 corpses, besides those of Katyn were exhimed and examined. They were exhumed from 87 burial grounds.
Q. To what method of camouflaging did the authors of these shootings, the Germans, resort in the case of the other mass graves?
A. In the district of Smolensk, in Dirionivka, the following method was reverted to. This method consisted of the following: and in some cases, young trees were planted as well as brushwood all this with a view to camouglagin. Besides, in the so-called "Pioneer Garden" of the town of Smolensk, the graves were covered by bricks and paths were laid out.
Q. You yourself exhumed more than five thousand corpses in various parts of the Soviet Union. What were the causes of death of the victims in most cases?
A. In most cases the cause of death was a firearm bullet wound in the area of the head, in the nape of the neck.
Q. And the picture of death at Katyn, was this picture similar to that which you noticed in other parts of the Soviet Union?
A. All shootings were carried out according to one single method, namely shot in the nape of the neck at close range. The exit or orifice was usually in the area of the forehead or in the area of the face.
Q. I will read the last paragraph of your account, motioned in the report of the Soviet State Commission.
"C ommission of experts. Answers:
"Notice the complete similarity of the method of shooting of the Polish prisoners of war with that applied to the Soviet prisoners of war and Soviet civilians, which was carried out on a vast scale by the German fascist authorities during the temporarily occupied territories of the USSR and including those which were carried out near the towns of Smolensk, Oral, Kharkov, Kasnodar and Voronish". Do you corroborate this conclusion?
A. Yes, this was a very typical method of shooting of all the victims of German extermination and of peaceful citizens.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: I have no further questions to put to this witness, Mr. President. BY DR. STAHMER (Counsel for defendant Goering):
Q. Where is your permanent residence, witness?
A. I was born in Moscow, and live permamnently in Moscow.
Q. How long have you been in the Health Commissariat?
A. I have been working in the institutions for public health and in the present ministry of Public Health since 1931. Before that I was a condiate to the Second Moscow University for Medicine.
Q. In this commission were there foreign scientists?
A. In this commission there were no foreign medical legal experts, but the execution of the examination and exhumation of these corpses was accessible to anybody who wished to look, and also foreign journalists, I believe twelve in number, came to the burial grounds, and I myself demonstrated to them the corpses at the burial grounds, the clothing and so on, as they were very interested to see this.
Q. Were representatives of foreign science present?
A. Again I repeat that no foreign experts were called besides Soviet ones.
Q. Can you give the names of the members of the press?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, he was giving a long list of names before and he was stopped by his Counsel.
Why do you shake your head?
DR. STAHMER: I did not understand that, Mr. President. I did not understand that he was giving a list of the names. He gave a list of names of the members of the Commission. My question is this: The witness said that members of the foreign press were present there and that the results of the investigation were presented to them. I am now asking for the names of these members of the foreign press.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, go on. BY DR. STAHMER:
Q. Will you please give me the names of the members of the press, or at least some names of those who were present and to whom you presented the results of theexamination?
A. Unhappily I can not give those names now here, but I believe that if if is necessary. I would be able to find their names -- the names of all these foreign correspondents who were present at the exhumation of the corpses.
Q. The statement about the number of corpses exhumed and examined by you seemed to vary a little, according to my notes, but I may have misunderstood. Once you mentioned 5,000 and one 925. Which figure is the correct one?
A. You did not quite hear. I said that 925 corpses had been exhumed in the Katyn Forest, but in general I and in my presence in many towns of the Soviet Union after the liberation of the territories from the Germans, exhumed and examined more that 5,000.
Q. Were you personally present at the exhumation?
A. Yes.
Q. How long did you work at this exhumation?
A. As I told you, on 14 January, a group of medical-legal, experts left for the site of the burial ground.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you not just say how long it took -- the whole exhumation? In other words, to shorten it, can you not say how long it took?
THE WITNESS: Very well. The examination of the corpses lasted from 16 to 23 January 1944. BY DR. STAHMER:
Q. Did you find only Polish officers?
A. All the corpses, with the exception of two which were found in civilian clothing, were in Polish uniforms and belonged to the Polish Army.
Q. Did you try to determine from what camp these Polish officers came originally?
A. That task did not constitute part of my sphere of activity. I was occupied only with the legal-medical examination of thecorpses.
Q. You did not learn in any other way from what camps they came?
A. I can say that when receipts were found with the date of 1941, one could see that there was the number 1-0-A-N. That supposedly means that this was a camp of special assignment.
Q. Did you know of the Kosieltsk Campt?
A. Only from hearsay. I have not been there.
Q. Do you know that Polish officers were kept prisoners there?
A. I can say what I heard. I heard that they were, but I myself do not know and have not been there.
Q. Did you learn anything about the fate of these officers?
A. I can not say anything about them, but I spoke of the fate of those officers who were discovered in the graves of Katyn.
Q. How many officers did you find altogether in this grave at Katyn?
A. We did not separate the corpses according to their rank, but, in general, there were 925 corpses exhumed and examined.
Q. Was that the majority?
A. Very many corpses bore on the shoulder straps various insignia or ribbons or officers' rank insignia. I myself did not distinguish them, and up to the presend day I would not be able to distinguish the rank of the Polish officers.
Q. What happened to the documents which were found on the Polish prisoners?
A. The examination of the closing was carried out upon request of the Special Commission, and when these experts discovered documents, they handed them over to the members of the Special Commission, either to Academician Burdenka or Academician Tolstoi, or to the other members of the Commission, and apparently these documents are in the archives of the Extraordinary Commission.
Q. Are you of the opinion that from the findings regarding the corpses the time at which they were killed can be determined with certainty?
A. All the members of the Commission, in determining the date of burial of the corpses, based our conclusions on experience gained during previous examinations and also on material evidence which was discovered by legalmedical experts, and this gave us the opportunity to ascertain categorically that the Polish officers wereshot in the fall of 1941.
Q. I asked whether from the medical findings you could make a definite statement, whether you could come to any definite conclusion.
A. I can again confirm what I have already said -- that being in possession of vast experience in the sphere of mass exhumations, we came to the conclusion, and we also had in corroboration of these conclusions material evidence, and that is how we came to determine the date of the burial of the Polish officers -- namely, the autumn of 1941.
DR. STAHMER: I have no more questions to put to this witness.
Mr. President, an explanation on the document which was just submitted, I have here only a copy signed by Heinrichs. I do not have the original.
THE PRESIDENT: I imagine the original is there.
DR. STAHMER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Colonel Smirnov, do you want to re-examine?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I have no further questions to put to this witness, but with the permission of the Tribunal, I would like to make a brief statement. case of Katyn only three. If the Tribunal is interested in hearing any other witness named in the reports of the Extraordinary State Commission, we have, in the majority of cases, adequate affidavits which we can submit on request of the Tribunal.
Moreover, any one of these persons can be called to this Court on the request of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer ?
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, I have no objection to the further taking of evidence as long as it is on an equal basis; that is, if I have the opportunity to offer further evidence. I also am in a position to call further witnesses and experts for the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has already made its order; it does not propose to hear further evidence.
DR. STAHMER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal wishes to hear Dr. Bergold with reference to finishing the case of the defendant Bormann, and the Tribunal also understands that counsel for the defendant von Neurath has some documents which he wishes to present.
Dr. von Luedinghausen, have you got some documents for von Neurath ?
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you present than now ?
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, I have here two types of documents One type includes the documents which I indicated in my speech during my case to which I called the attention of the Court. They are all in the document books which have been submitted to the Court, and I believe it will be enough to hand these documents to the Secretary.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Luedinghausen, you have already offered them in evidence and they all have numbers, have they not ?
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN: Then I have a number of documents, probably twelve or fifteen, which have also been included in my document books in translation. However, I have not yet mentioned these documents and have not yet asked the Court to take judicial notice of them. If I may refer to them briefly, they are as follows:
A letter from Mr. von Neurath to Hitler of the 19th of June, 1933. Commission in 1926.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you kindly give them the exhibit numbers which they are to have as you off or them in evidence ?
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The first one is a letter to Hitler of the 19th of June 1933. What number will that letter have ?
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN: That is number 12.
Number 32. minutes on the withdrawal of the Inter-Allied Military Commission.
Number 51, an article of Mr. von Neurath on the League of Nations, in the Magazine "League of Nations" of the 11th of May, 1933.
Number 52, Hitler's speech of the 17th of May, 1933, the so-called "Peace Speech"? of May, 1933. ment Conference, Norman Davies, of the 22nd of May, 1933. mament conference of the 27th of May, 1935. July 1934. 1934. ber 1934.
Number 86, a speech of Mr. von Neurath of the 17th of September, 1934. November, 1934. of the 20th of July, 1936. contained in my document books.
Mr. President, may I take this opportunity to submit the following application ?
THE PRESIDENT: Those documents have all been translated, have they not, Dr. Luedinghausen ?
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN: Yes, they are all included, in translation, in the document books which have been submitted.
Mr. President, may I now make an application to the Court ? It is to the effect that the Court should permit me to recall the defendant von Neurath to the witness stand, for the following reason. document 3859-PS to the defendant, which document represented a photostatic copy of a letter of the defendant of the 31st of August 1940 to the head of the Reich Chancellery, Lammers, plus two enclosures, in which the defendant asked Lammers to present the two enclosures to Hitler and to obtain a personal conference, if possible, or a report on the question of alleged Germanization. The two enclosures of this letter to Lammers are reports and suggestions on the future formulation of the Protectorate, and concern the assimilation or possible Germanization of the Czech people. document -- it has thirty or forty pages in this photostatic form -- surprised the defendant, and at that moment he could not recall the matter adequately Nevertheless, in cross-examination, after a very brief look at these reports he expressed doubts as to whether these reports, as presented here in photostatic form, were actually identical with the reports which were enclosed, according to his instructions, in the letter to Lammers to be submitted to Hitler. the course of cross-examination, and of course I myself, since I did not know the documents, was not able to comment upon them.
Since Mr. von Neurath was obviously exhausted after the cross-examination it was not possible to examine the question and discuss it with him on the same day; that would have been possible only on the following day.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. von Luedinghausen, the defendant may be recalled for the purpose of being asking about these two documents, but of course it is an exceptional license which is allowed on this occasion, because the object of re-examination is to enable counsel to elucidate such matters as this.
as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: You are still under oath, of course. BY DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN:
Q. Mr. Von Neurath, do you recall the occasion for your letter to Mr. Lammers of the 31st of August, 1940, and your request for him to arrange a conference with Hitler ?
A. Yes. As I said during my examination, in the course of the summer of 1940 I learned that various Reich and Party agencies, particularly the Gauleiters of the neighboring Gaus and Himmler, had sent more or less radical reports and suggestions to Hitler. I knew that Himmler particularly made quite extreme suggestions regarding a distribution of the protectorate area, and complete destruction of the Czech nationality and the Czech people. These agencies were urging Hitler to realize these plans immediately. plans and, to the contrary, wanted the Czech people as such and their nationality retained and preserved from Himmler and his intentions to destroy it, I decided to make an attempt to induce Hitler not to realize any Germanization plans, but to forbid them and to send a categorical order to this effect to this Party and its agencies.
included in your letter to Lammers?
AAs far as I can recall, the thing happened as follows. Either I myself dictated a report or I had one of my officials draw it up according to my instructions; I believe the latter. But I recall exactly that this report was much briefer than the one submitted here in photostatic copy. much sharper, and that the whole problem had to be considered very carefully.
Q Now, how and why did the second report of Frank come about? too, was opposed to this splitting of Czech territory and the evacuation of the population as proposed by Himmler, and that he shared my opinions, at least to that extent. Therefore, I considered it expedient, since Hitler had assigned Frank to me as state secretary because he knew the Czech country and people very well, to point out to Hitler that this man was opposed to Himmler's plans, too, and advised Hitler against accepting them. emphasize that you shared the opinions expressed in Frank's report? SS, and a subordinate and confidant of Himmler. On the other hand, I knew that already at that time, because of my attitude towards the Czech people, which he considered much too mild and cooperative, Hitler was prejudiced against me, and I was, therefore, convinced that together with Frank I would be more likely to be successful in influencing Hitler than if I went to him alone. report. For the same reason, I did not write directly to Hitler, as I should otherwise, but to Lammers. According to previous experience, I had to assume that if I had written directly to Hitler, who was not in Berlin at the time, he would either not read the report at all, or would refer it to Himmler.
Q How was this letter to Lammers and its drafting handled in your office?
A I had the draft of the report of Frank shown to me. Then I dictated my letter to Lammers, and I sent it with my report and Frank's draft back to Frank's office for a clear copy of the Frank report to be made and for the letter to Lammers with the two reports to be sent off.
were sent out, and I did not see then in Berlin at the conference with Hitler.
Q My last question is this. How did you reach the conviction that the photostatic copies submitted here of the two reports could not be identical with the reports which were enclosed in the letter to Lammers, according to your instructions? according to my recollection, it was much shorter than the one submitted here in photostatic copy. Furthermore, this photostatic copy does not bear my signature, not even my initials. But it is out of the question that the copy of this report which was enclosed in the letter to Lammers would not have been signed, or, at least, initialed by me; and the notice of correctness, which is remarkably unsuited to this report prepared by an SS Obersturmbanfuehrer, is not signed. The photostatic copy which is said to have been enclosed in the letter to Lammers does not even bear my initials. photostatic copy. This can have a meaning only if the document enclosed in the letter to Lammers did not bear my signature and was enclosed in the letter nevertheless.
But since the copy which I gave to Frank's office to send on to Lammers was certainly signed by me, this notice indicates that not the report signed by me was enclosed in the letter sent to Lammers, but another one prepared by Frank or by officials in his office. And, as for Frank's own report, the text of the photostatic copy here, to my definite recollection, is not identical with the text of the report which I approved and which I sent on together with my report to Lammers.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. von Luedinghausen, we have heard the explanation more than once, I think, that the enclosure which was in the letter was not the same as the one which he drew up. It does not get any more convincing by getting told over again.
DR. von LUEDINGHAUSEN: I only wanted to express it again. But if the Tribunal believes that that explanation is sufficient, I may dispense with it.
THE WITNESS: Mr. President, my I please explain that I can only imagine how this took place? I am convinced that if the two photostatic copies submitted here were actually enclosed in the letter to Lammers, they were prepared in Frank's office, and enclosed without my knowledge in place of the reports which I had prepared. Another possibility would be, of course -
THE PRESIDENT: We are quite as able to imagine possibilities as you are.
The fact is that the letter was signed in his name, was it not? The letter itself was signed?
DR. von LUEDINGHAUSEN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And he refers expressly to the enclosure?
DR. von LUEDINGHAUSEN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; we understand it.
DR. von LUEDINGHAUSEN: Yes. I wanted it to be made clear to the Court. These remarkable characteristics of the two reports could not be examined in detail at the moment of cross-examination.
I have no further questions, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the defendant can return to the dock.
Do you want to ask any questions, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I do not think so. If the Court would just allow me, I should like to look at the document while the court is recessed and see whether there is any point that I might like to question on.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess now.
(A recess was taken.)
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have considered the matter and I think it is really in the stage of argument and not cross exmination but, my Lord, I should like your Lordship just to observem as the matter has been raised, that there is a certificate given by Captain Hochwald on behalf of General Ecer, which states that the exhibit which was put in is a photostat taken from the original of a document found in the Archives of the Reich Protector's office in Prague, so that that theory appears from the certificate and the exhibit, that the copy-letter to Dr. Lammers and the two memoranda were reserved and found in the office of the Reich Protector. I don't want to say anything further in the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the defendant come back to the witness box. Oh, no he needn't come back. Dr. Bergold.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: (Counsel for Doenitz.) Mr. President, since Dr. Bergold is absent at present, I should like to ask whether I may submit the three outstanding documents, outstanding in my case.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Dr. Kranzbuehler.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: I am offering as Doenitz Exhibit 100, the affidavit deposed by the Chief of the American Navy, Nimitz, as to U-beat war against the Jap navy. It is already known that I was to present it. I need not read this affidavit for in my final presentation of my argument,I sahll refer to this point.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to have the document read, Dr. Kranzbuehler.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Very well, Mr. President. I have the original, text in English, Mr. President, and I shall therefore read in English. "At the request of the International Military Tribunal, the following interrogatories were on this date, 11 May 1940, put to Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz ....
THE PRESIDENT: You must have given the wrong date -- 1946, isn't it ?
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: 11 May 1946.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go on.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: " ... put to Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, U.S. Navy, by Lt. Commander Joseph L. Broderick, United States Naval Reserve, of the International Law Section, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Navy Department, Washington, D. C., who recorded verbatim the testimony of the witness. Admiral Nimitz was duly sworn by Lt. Commander Broderick and interrogated as follows:
"QUESTION: What is your name, rank and present station ?
"ANSWER: Chester W. Nimitz, Fleet Admiral, U.S. Navy, Chief of Naval Operations of the United States Navy.
"QUESTION: What positions in the United States Navy did you hold from December 1941 until May 1945 ?
"ANSWER: Commander-in-Chief, United States Pacific Fleet.
"QUESTION: Did the United States of America enter sea warfare against Japan and announce certain waters to be areas of operation, blockade, danger, restriction, warning, or the like ?
"ANSWER: Yes. For the purpose of command of operations against Japan, the Pacific Ocean areas were declared a theatre of operation.
"QUESTION: If yes, was it customary in such areas for submarines to attack merchantmen without warning, with the exception of her own and those of her Allies ?
ANSWER: Yes, with the exception of hospital ships and other vessels under safe conduct voyages for humanitarian purposes.
"QUESTION: Were you under orders to do so ?
"ANSWER: The Chief of Naval Operations on 7 December 1941, ordered unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan.
"QUESTION: Was it customary far the submarines to attack Japanese merchantmen without warning outside of announced operations or similar areas since the outbreak of the war ?
"ANSWER: The reply to this interrogatory involves a matter outside of the limits of my command during the war; therefore, I make no reply thereto.
"QUESTION: Were you under orders to do so ?
"ANSWER: The reply to this interrogatory involves a matter outside the limits of my command during the war; therefore, I make no reply thereto.
"QUESTION: If the practice of attacking without warning did not exist since the outbreak of the war, did it exist from a later date on; from what date on ?
"ANSWER: The practice existed from 7 December 1941 in the declared zone of operations.
"QUESTION: Did this practice correspond to issued orders ?
"ANSWER: Yes.
"QUESTION: Did it become known to the United States Naval authorities that Japanese merchantmen were under orders to report any sighted United States submarines to the Japanese armed forces via radio ? If yes, when did it become knew ?
"ANSWER: During the course of the war, it became known to the United States Naval authorities that Japanese merchantmen in fact reported by radio to Japanese armed forces any information regarding sighting of United States submarines.
"QUESTION: Did the United States submarines thereupon receive the order to attack without warning, Japanese merchantmen; if this order did not exist already before, if yes, when ?
"ANSWER: The order existed from 7 December 1941 .
"QUESTION: Did it become known to the United States Naval authorities that the Japanese merchantmen were under orders to attack any United States submarine in any way suitable according to the situation; for instance, by ramming, gunfire, or by depth charge; if yes, when did it become known ?
"ANSWER: Japanese merchantmen were usually armed and always attacked by any available means when feasible.
"QUESTION: Did the United States submarines thereupon receive the order of attacking without warning, Japanese merchantmen; if this order already did not exist before, if yes, when ?
"ANSWER: The order existed from 7 December 1941.
"Question: Were, by order or on general principles, the United States submarines prohibited from carrying out rescue measures toward passengers and crows of ships sunk without warning in those cases where by doing so the safety of their own beat was endangered?"
"Answer: On general principles, the United states submarines did not rescue enemy survivors if undue additional hazard to the submarine resulted or the submarine would thereby be prevented from accomplishing its further mission. United States submarines were limited in rescue measures by small passenger carrying facilities combined with the known desperate and suicidal character of the enemy. Therefore, it was unsafe to pick up many survivors. Frequently survivors were given rubber boats and/or provisions. Almost invariably survivors did not come aboard the submarine voluntarily and it was necessary to take then prisoner by force."
"Question: If such an order or principle did not exist, did the United States submarine actually carry out rescue measures in the above mentioned cases?"
"Answer: In numerous cases enemy survivors were rescued by United States submarines."
"Question: In answering the above question, does the expression 'merchantmen' mean any other kind of ships than those which were not warships?"
"Answer; No. By 'merchantmen' I mean all types of ships which were not combatant ships. Used in this sense, it includes fishing beats, etc."
"Question: If yes, what kind of ships?"
"Answer: The last answer covers this question."
"Question: Has any order of the United States Naval authorities mentioned in the above questionnaire, concerning the tactics of the United States submarines toward Japanese merchantmen, been based on the ground of reprisal?"
"Answer: The unrestricted submarine and air warfare ordered on 7 December 1941 resulted from the recognition of Japanese tactics revealed on that date.