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.
No further orders to United States submarines concerning tactics toward Japanese merchantmen, throughout the war, were based on reprisal, although specific instances of Japanese submarines committing atrocities toward United States merchant marine survivors became known and would have justified such a course."
"Question: Has this order or have these orders of the Japanese government been announced as reprisals?"
"Answer: This question is not clear. Therefore I make no reply thereto."
" Question: On the basis of what Japanese tactics was reprisal considered justified?"
"Answer: The unrestricted submarine and air warfare ordered by the Chief of Naval Operations on 7 December 1941 was justified by the Japanese attacks on that date on United States bases and on both armed and unarmed ships and nationals without warning or declaration of war."
"The above record of testimony has been examined by me on this date and is in all respects accurate and true." Signed, Chester W. Nimitz, Fleet Admiral, United States Navy. given by the former judge, Jaeckel, about the sentences given by Naval Courts for the protection of the indigenous population when they were attacked. This document has been admitted by the High Tribunal and is present in translation and because of that fact I do not need to read it.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give us the number?
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Doenitz 49, Mr. President.
Then, Mr. President, some weeks back I made application to admit extracts from the protocols of a war crimes court at Oslo. These had been used by the prosecution on the occasion of the cross examination of Grand Admiral Doenitz. At that time they were not assigned a number. From these records I selected some extracts which are meant to prove that in the case of the torpedo boat No. 345, whose crew were shot because of the commando order, that this was a beat which was acting on sabotage mission and in dealing with the treatment of these prisoners the Commander in Chief of the Navy, specifically, Admiral Doenitz, was not notified of the treatment accorded these men; that, on the other hand, this question was handled and disposed of directly through discussions between Gauleiter Terboven and the Fuehrer's Headquarters.
I am asking that the High Tribunal admit this asa piece of evidence, since this document was used by the Prosecution.
The number I shall assign to it will be Doenitz No. 107.
COLONEL PHILLIMOR : Your Honor, I don't know if the Tribunal has got before it the answer which the prosecution have put into this application.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we have just looked at it now.
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: Broadly speaking, it comes to this, that we are quite prepared to put in the whole proceedings but we should object to extracts being put in; that is, amongst the affidavits and the evidence of some of the witnesses material to support the points for which Counsel for Defendant Doenitz contends. There is, on the other hand, a body of evidence the other way on all those points. That is why, your Honor -
THE PRESIDENT: Wouldn't it save translation if you put in the passages in the document upon which you rely?
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: If that would be more convenient, My Lord, we can do that.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know how long the document is. It may be very long indeed.
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: The whole proceedings are very long. The trial lasted for four days.
THE PRESIDENT: Then it would be appropriate that you should pick out the parts on which you rely and Dr. Kranzbuehler can put in -
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: MY Lord, it is put in the answer that the document which was proved in the Defendant's case against this Defendant was an affidavit by the Judge Advocate, who wet out the effect of the evidence accepted by the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal follows that, but it thinks that it is desirable that you should put in the passages upon which you rely as well as the defense counsel.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: May I submit this document, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: What is the number again, please?
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: No. 107, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: And it Contains extracts from these proceedings, does it?
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Yes, extracts.
THE PRESIDENT: The prosecution will put in their extracts and we will consider them both.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Mr. President, then I have a question dealing with the documents of the case which we have just dealt with, the case of Katyn. The witness, Professor Markov, mentioned the expert opinion given by the Italian exper, Professor Palmieri, as a piece of evidence for the reason that insects had allegedly been found among the corpses. These insects are not mentioned, but rather, larvae are mentioned in this expert opinion, and to me the difference is that insects are flying about during the summer whereas larvae hide and conceal themselves during the winter months.
Mr. President, may I submit this document?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I should like to make just one factual remark. In the protocol of Professor Palmieri it was indicated that the larvae were discovered inside the clothes of the corpses. I don't know where the insects were found. That is why I don't think that the presentation of the document by defense counsel should be permitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kranzbuehler, you are specifying a particular document referred to in the White Book, is that right?
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: And you mean the whole of the document?
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: That document is only about one page long, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you may put it in, subject to its being translated
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Very well, Mr. President.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Mr. President, we are talking about one document which is a report on the dissection of the corpses performed by Professor Palmieri. This is just a protocol of the dissection by Professor Palmieri.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it referred to in the conclusions or not?
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: It is put in on the same basis as the testimony of Professor Markov. It is the findings on the autopsy which Professor Palmieri performed.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Mr. President, I have another document which I should like to introduce in the case of Katyn, which I received from Polish sources just a few days ago. This is a document set down in England, which was published in London in 1946. The title is, "Report on the Massacre of Polish Officers in the Katyn Wood." this document to the High Tribunal as evidence. However, before I set up certain pieces of evidence and proof, I would like to ask that the High Tribunal examine this document, for there may be doubts whether it actually can be used as a piece of evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kranzbuehler, this document is printed for private circulation only. It has no printer's name on it, and it is entirely anonymous.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Yes, Mr. President, those were my own doubts. That is why I voiced them. I submitted this document because of the significance of this case. I thought the Tribunal nevertheless would want to take notice of this document and its contents.
THE PRESIDENT: No, the Tribunal thinks it would be improper to look at a document of this nature.
GENERAL RUDENKO: Mr. President, I should like to make one remark because the statement of the defense counsel that this document was received from the Polish Delegation astounds me. I should like to know from what Polish Delegation he received this document, because the Polish Delegation of the Polish Government could not possibly possess such a Fascist document as this.
THE PRESIDENT: I think General Rudenko misunderstood what Dr. Kranzbuehler said.
DR. SAUTER (Counsel for the defendant Funk): Mr. President, five interrogatories were granted to me on behalf of the defendant Funk. When I presented my case, I could not submit these affidavits because they had not been translated. lations have been submitted to the High Tribunal. I ask your indulgence in permitting me to submit them to the High Tribunal at this point. 2, will be assigned Exhibit No. 16. This is a rather extensive interrogation of the witness Landfried who was active in the ministry of the defendant Funk in the capacity of a state secretary. I do not believe I need to read this record in detail, but the first question deals with the economic policy represented by Funk as he exercised it in the occupied countries. He expressly pictures it in the same way as it was pictured by Funk.
Under No.2, he deals with the directions given by the defendant Funk to the military commanders and to the Reich commanders of the occupied countries. exploitation and plundering of the occupied territories. He confirms the fact, and testifies to it, that the defendant Funk always opposed plundering, that he fought the black market, that he opposed devaluation of the currency and foreign exchange, that he tried to maintain currency on an even keel.
Funk tried to avoid financial overburdening of the occupied countries, specifically, to have the costs of occupation lowered to the lowest possible level. explains the activities of the defendant Funk in the Ministry of Economics, specifically German preparations in the event of a war. General Plenipotentiary for Economy, and he concludes that in practice it was just a matter of paper. take up the valuable time of the High Tribunal, for in the main these are only repetitions of statements that have already been made. who, as I have already said, for years was the deputy of the defendant, describe the entire personality of the defendant, his attitude toward the problem of terror, and the fundamental attitude that he represented as to the use of foreign workers.
Mr. President, I ask that the High Tribunal take judicial notice of this rather extensive work, and I have just quoted it briefly.
The next interrogatory was deposed by the witness Emil Puhl. This was the same witness who was interrogated in this courtroom about other questions. This is the interrogatory and the answers of the witness Emil Puhl, Document Book Funk, Supplement No 3.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, has this interrogatory been granted?
DR. SAUTER: yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: He gave his evidence. We don't generally allow interrogatories to witnesses who have given their evidence.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the matter was like this: As far back as December I had asked to be granted this interrogatory and repeatedly asked about it, but it did not arrive. During two days of cross examination, this witness Emil Puhl was questioned on entirely different matters, and was brought in for an entirely different matter by the Prosecution, the matter of gold teeth, and the SS relation to these gold teeth.
This matter, as raised by the Prosecution, was not the same as the matter granted for my interrogatory. I believe I was granted this in February.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, what I mean is this: Supposing the Tribunal is asked to grant an interrogatory and it grants the interrogatory, and then the witness is subsequently called to give evidence. When he is called to give evidence, he ought to be questioned upon all the matters which are relevant to the trial. The Tribunal doesn't want to have to read his evidence in one place and then his interrogatory in some other place.
Is there any objection, Mr. Dodd, to accepting it in this case?
MR. DODD: No, I have no objection, Mr. President. That is the situation. It was granted before Puhl was called. He was called here for cross-examination and I do not recall off-hand whether or not counsel inquired concerning these matters that are contained therein. We have no objections. It may be some annoyance to the tribunal which we regret.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the witness Puhl during his examination as to the french camps, had questions submitted to him on cross-examination and they were answered by him as the Prosecution Suggested. Therefore, he was not only interrogated about the questions that I put to him but also the questions put by the Prosecution were submitted to him. Therefore, I shall submit this document, which is an interrogatory deposed by Emil Puhl, document book of Walter Funk, Supplement number 3 and shall be assigned the exhibit number 17. interrogatory, deals solely with matters entirely different from the matters dealt with here in his examination. He dealt withthe preparations which the Reichspresident, the Reichsbank President, Dr. Funk, made in the war. That was one point. currency.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal thinks you need not read the interrogatory but the Tribunal will allow it to go in in this case.
DR. SAUTER: Very well, Mr. President. I wanted to sketch the contents to you briefly. This has already been granted by the tribunal and is the testimony given by Heinz Kallus, to be found in document book Walter Funk supplement 4 and shall be assigned exhibit number Funk 18 and I should like to submit this testimony to the general secretary and I should like to ask, in order to save time, that the Tribunal take judicial notice of the contents of the testimony offered. deposed by Mr. Messersmith, a supplement to a statement he has already made, which has been submitted to the tribunal.
This is very brief, in fact it is but one sentence and it may be found in Walter Funk supplement number 5 and shall be assigned exhibit number 19.
I should like to submit this book as well. And now I have arrived at the conclusion of my report, Mr. President. Thank you very much.
DR. THOMA (Counsel for defendant Rosenberg): Mr. President, I should like to submit to the Tribunal the testimony of the witness Boil. Up to now I have received this only in English. I should like to submit this at RO 50. I had this given back to me by the translation department. taken by theEastern Ministry in the recruitment of labor and it is of such significance that I ask the permission of the tribunal to read it or to have it read. Since I am not entirely conversant with the English language I should like to ask to have an interpreter read this interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, has this document been offered in evidence before? It was granted, was it, by the Tribunal, this interrogatory?
DR. THOMA: Yes, indeed, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it necessary to read it? Cannot you submit it in evidence and the Tribunal will consider it?
DR. THOMA: I should leave that to the discretion of the Tribunal. I wanted to point out only that this is very important testimony which is decisive as to the treatment of manpower by the Eastern Ministry. However, I shall leave that to the judgment of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Cannot you summarize it?
DR. THOMA: Mr. President, I have only an English copy. I have only an English version and I do not wish to attempt to do anything withit but there are only two pages. I believe the interpreter will read that in no time at all.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the interpreter read it then.
(ENGLISH INTERPRETER READ THE DOCUMENT AS FOLLOWS:)
"Copy -- RO Exhibit Number 50.
"Completed interrogatory of Ministerialrat.
"Dr. Boil behalf of Rosenberg.
"The witness having been duly sworn, states:
"Q Were you the permanent official (Sachbearbeiter) in the East Ministry (Ost Ministerium) in charge of the questions of labor and social policy?