SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE : My Lord, there is no objection to this affidavit, I have no copy in front of them. It is general in its terms and if I may say so, I thought it would serve its purpose admirably if Dr. Stahmer put it in and the Tribunal consider it in due course.
THE PRESIDENT : Yes.
DR. STAHMER : The original will be submitted in the next few days, Mr. President. We are concerned with an interrogatory by the Judge Advocate of the Air Force, General von Hammerstein. For several years he was the Judge Advocate in Chief of the Air Force and in that capacity, once a month he reported to the defendant Goering and in that way he was in a position to judge the attitude and position taken by Goering and in detail he is describing how seriously the defendant Goering considered his duties, as the Judge Advocate in Chief, and he further describes how the Reichsmarshal Goering reserved the right to make decisions in all the more important matters; that he concerned himself with all matters very carefully; that as to the soldiers who were under his command, he was interested in their maintaining morale and discipline and that, specifically, he was careful to see that the soldiers subordinate to him were punished most severly if they acted illegally against the civilian population and especially against the civilian population in the Occupied Countries. Then he further sets forth that the Reichsmarshal Goering, particularly on those occasions demanded severe punishment when acts of violence against women were involved and that in the many decrees he reserved the admiration and respect shown to women as the first duty of a soldier; that in severe cases of rape, he always demanded death as the penalty no matter what the nationality of the woman was and in two cases, for instance, he rescinded the sentences for the sentences had been too lenient and confirmed --
THE PRESIDENT : What you have said, Dr. Stahmer, has given us the substance of the affidavit. You said that this man was the Judge Advocate for the Air Force and that the law with reference to offenses in the air force was strictly carried out. I am sure that is all you want to say in summarizing it.
DR. STAHMER: Yes, Mr. President. There was no consideration given to the nationality of the woman involved, and in one case of rape which applied to a Russian woman, he always -
THE PRESIDENT: That is exactly what I have said, that the law was strictly carried out. It is only an illustration of how the law was strictly carried out.
DR. STAHMER: Very well, Mr. President. Mr. President, I shall dispense with all further explanation. I shall submit this document immediately
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal thinks that their time is being wasted, and unless counsel for the defense can do what the Tribunal desires them to do, which is to offer these affidavits and interrogatories in evidence giving the shortest possible summary or description of the affidavits or interrogatories, the Tribunal will have to order that the interrogatories and affidavits shall be simply offered in evidence, and they will hear no comment whatever on them. are going to make their speeches, and if there is anything in these affidavits or interrogatories of real importance, they will have the opportunity then of commenting upon it. Also, the Tribunal itself proposed to read not only the oral evidence, but the documentary evidence in this case.
DR. STAHMER: Then, Mr. President, I should like to submit this document under Exhibit No. 53.
THE PRESIDENT: Now then, counsel for the defendant von Ribbentrop. Dr. Horn, you have no affidavits or interrogatories to put in, have you, that have been approved by the Tribunal?
DR. HORN: Mr. President, I ask to be permitted to submit four affidavits to the High Tribunal. Thadden, Legation Councillor in the Information Office No. 14 in the Foreign Office, which was a branch which dealt with the anti-Semitic propaganda in foreign countries.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, have you applied for these documents?
DR. HORN: Trhough the General Secretary, in writing, I asked that these affidavits be granted, and this morn ing I received the confirmation that these affidavits had been given to the Translation Department and to the Prosecution.
Therefore, I beg to submit this document as Ribbentrop Exhibit No.319. the submission of which I have asked the General Secretary in writing, is the affidavit of Dr. Werner Best, a former Reich Plenipotentiary.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FIFE: I am sorry, but as I was telling Dr. Horn, we haven't had copies of these yet; they haven't reached usso far.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I have before me a list of four affidavits, Thadden, Best, Ribbentrop and Schulze, and it is stated that they are not approved by the Tribunal.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FIFE: No, My Lord, Dr. Horn mentioned them to me a day or two ago, as to whether I should object to their being translated, and I said no, that I shouldn't object to their being translated. Of course, I haven't had a chance to see them.
THE PRESIDENT: Wouldn't the best course, as they have gone to the Translating Department, be for them to be offered in evidence now, as I understand Dr. Horn is intending to do, subject, of course, to any question which may arise as to their admissibility?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FIFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, if you will just give us the numbers then.
DR. HORN: The affidavit proposed by Best I should like to submit as Ribbentrop Exhibit 323. I should like to give a brief explanation for the reason for this affidavit. This document is an affidavit of a colonel of the police, Dr. Rudolf Mildner. From this affidavit a passage was quoted to my client dealing with the treatment of Jews in Denmark. I examined this document and have ascertained that two documents bear the number 2375-PS. One document is a statement made by Dr. Mildner which wasnot made under oath. This statement which was not attested to under oath contained that passage which was put up to my client in cross examination. Under the same number there is an affidavit which has been attested and sworn to, deposed by Dr. Mildner also. This passage dealing with the attitude of Ribbentrop on the Jewish question is not found in this affidavit.
Dr. Best, on the instructions of Ribbentrop, dealt with the Jewish question.
I have had this affidavit given to me. with a seriesof documents, on which occasion he could answer but briefly since they were extensive documents which, in the majority, he had not seen in advance. I should like to ask the High Tribunal to permit me a few explanations on behalf of my client, and I should like to submit this document on behalf of my client under Exhibit No. 321 Ribbentrop. TC-75. TC-75 represents a note sent by Ribbentrop to Hitler. This was submitted by the Prosecution in a very abbreviated form. When I had this document given to me in the original for the first time, the photo copy coincided with the copy submitted by the Prosecution. When I had this same exhibit given to me a second time, I received a photostatic copy of nine pages, and in my final argument I should like to refer to this document. Therefore, in order to save the time of the High Tribunal, I ask for permission to submit this complete document TC-75.
I have no further applications, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, you didn't give a number to that last affidavit.
DR. HORN: That exhibit will be No. 322, identical to TC-75.
DR. SIEMERS: (Counsel for the defendant Raeder) Mr. President, with the permission of the High Tribunal, I should like to deal with the outstanding points of my presentation of evidence. me by the High Tribunal, General Admiral Boehm. The Tribunal will recall that I called this witness at the end of the presentation of evidence. I checked with Sir Elwyn Jones and Sir David. I have received an affidavit deposed by Boehm at Hamburg, so that I could perhaps dispense with calling him as a witness.
I submitted this affidavit to Sir David and to Mr. Jones, and yesterday afternoon, Hr. Jones told no that Sir David and he agreed that they would not cross examine, and at the sane time I agreed to not insist on an examination, but rather to be satisfied with the submitting and reading of the affidavit.
I believe that Sir David agreed. 129. This was sworn to on the 13th of June this year at Hamburg.
THE PRESIDENT: It isn't necessary to read it now, is it?
DR. SIEMERS: Hr, President, I should be very grateful if I might be permitted to read this affidavit, for it deals with a portion of evidence which is quite significant. The High Tribunal, I am sure, will recall the fact -
THE PRESIDENT: But a have already told you, Dr. Siemers, that we can't have all these documents read out to us. You can certainly confine yourself to the really important part of it and summarize anything that is really not so important.
DR. SIEMERS: The High Tribunal will agree with me that as far as my other documents are concerned, Tread remarkably little. I just wanted to read a part of it. I am concerned only with the fact that the British Delegation, at the close of the cross examination, submitted two very lengthy summaries, GB-464, and GB-465. The so are summaries about the key documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, surely you can tell us what the subject matter of the affidavit is. We will then know the general subject matter of it, and then I should have thought you could direct our attention to the particular matters which are of special importance here. It only takes up time if you are going to tell us what the Prosecution have done.
DR. SIEMERS: I beg your pardon, Mr. President, if I have been misunderstood. It was my intention to do just that.
I shall not read from "I" of the affidavit. I shall only summarize it, that it is a discussion between Raeder and AdmiralBoehm, referring to the summer of 1939, on which occasion Boehm told Raeder that he was being careful because of the pol itical developments.
He then asked whether Raeder had called Hitler's attention to the great dangers and to the fact that the German Navy would not be in a position to carry on a sea war.
"The Grand Admiral replied to me"-- and this is verbatim-"that he had done this more than once in the presence of Hitler, and that he had concluded his presentation to Hitler with the fundamental and basic sentence that in such a case the Navy could not do other than to die gloriously".
As to "II" of the affidavit of Admiral Boehm: "on the 22d of October 1939, Hitler made a speech at the Obersalberg to the top leaders of the Wehrmacht. I was present during the entire speech which lasted two to two and a half hours. The speech was delivered in the office of Hitler".
I am now omitting the next few points and continue:
"The speech was submitted as Raeder Exhibit No.27 to the High Tribunal, and I set it down with great exactitude, and I can state under oath that the speech was delivered in the way in which I have set it down. I can specifically confirm that all important thoughts and words are contained in the presentation as I have set it forth.
"The versions submitted by the Prosecution, Documents 798 and 1040-PS, have been submitted to me by Dr. Siemers. I have compared the various cersions".
Now I am skipping a paragraph:
"I decalre under oath that parts of the speech as shown in this document were not used by Hitler, and parts were used in another sense by Hitler". version which I have just received, which was submitted by Sir David. I should like to remind the High Tribunal that this is GB-464. In this version you will find the sentence, "Thereafter, we shall discuss military details". Attitude taken: This sentence was not used. Military details did not follow".
In Document 793-PS , lines 7 to 10, "I made this decision already in spring, but thought that first of all in a few years I should turn against the West, and only thereafter against the East".Attitude taken:
"The version as set down by me, on pages 5 to 8, is absolutely true. That part of the speech saying that Hitler would first of all turn to the West was something that was not used in any event."
Line 12 to 14:
"First of all I wanted to bring about a working agreement with Poland so that I could first of all fight against the west. In no event did Hitler voice the thought that he wanted to fight against the west." says:
"With us the making of decisions is easy. We have nothing to lose, only to gain. Our economic situation, because of our resources, is such that we can last only a few more years. As to the attitude taken here, the summary in my statement, pages 21 to 26 is absolutely correct. Above all --"
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, does it not come to thi s? There are two or three versions of this particular speech and this admiral is saying that his version is correct. That is all it comes to and he does not think the other versions are correct, Well, the Tribunal will no doubt have to compare the three versions and compare it with this affidavit. But what is the purpose or use of reading it to us at this stage I do not know.
DR. SIEMERS: Very well, Mr. President. Thank you very much, Mr. President. statement, as set forth herein. I should like to refer only to the fact that Admiral Boehm expressly confirms that the sentence which has been quoted several times:
"'I am afraid that at the last moment some dirty dog (Schweinehund) w ill give me an arbitrary possibility.' I want to state under oath that Hitler did not use this sentence." been emphasized by the prosecution sic or seven times and I should like to read it.
"The destruction of Poland is in the foreground and the outrage is the doing away of living forces, not the reaching of a certain line."
In this connection Boehm says:
"There was never any talk of any destruction of Poland or of a destruction of the fighting forces. What we did speak about was the breaking down of military forces."
rather carefully set down statements for it seems to me that this matter is important in looking at the evidence presented by the prosecution. he was commanding admiral at Norway. I should like to have the Tribunal take judicial notice of this matter. In this statement we are chiefly concerned with the fight carried on by Boehm and Terboven against the German civilian administration and to come to peace with Norway.
Mr. President, after many weeks finally the interrogatory of Albrecht has reached me in its final form. I have submitted it to the translation department several days ago and have not yet received the translation. This has been granted me and this shall be Raeder Exhibit 128. of the closest co-workers of Raeder; that already in 1939, in October, he resigned. He knows the attitude taken by Raeder and he knows the conduct and leadership of the navy at the time before 1933 and up to 1938. He too confirms the fact that Raeder constantly warned Hitler of complications and to avoid them and that Hitler always stated that he had matters under control and that he would not let a war come about.
All other points, I ask Mr. President, that the Tribunal take judicial notice of.
I should like to refer to the following. One interrogatory by Schulze is still outstanding. All my efforts to obtain this interrogatory dates back to March 1946. I have his address. The witness is in retirement. The witness is in Hamburg, Blankenese, and the interrogatory was sent to Hamburg in March. as I have no facility to expedite this matter, that I be permitted to submit this interrogatory to the Tribunal at a later time. However, I do not know when it will reach me for this interrogatory has inthe meantime been sent to Washington for reasons I do not quite understand but I certainly hope this interrogatory will reach me at some future date.
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me. What do you mean by it having been sent to Washington? Did you say Washington?
DR. SIEMERS: The secretary of the secretariat told me this interrogatory had been sent to Washington for the reason that the winess could be found there. However, the witness resides in Hamburg/ I am sorry that I have no possibility of using my influence at all even though I have tried for three months.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, no doubt the general secretary is making every effort to have the witness found. What are the dates? You say that three months ago you submitted this interrogatory? Was it sent to Hamburg or where was it sent?
Surely, Dr. Siemers, you ought to know. You have been in touch all these three months with the general secretary and you are stating that he sent it to Washington. You ought to know. Have you given him any address in Hamburg? What is your complaint?
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I was not complaining. I was just giving you a picture of the facts in order to show why the interrogatory has not been returned and I ask that when the interrogatory reaches me that I may be permitted to submit it then.
THE PRESIDENT: I know you say that but the Tribunal wants to know where the interrogatory was first sent and why it 3 July M LJG 6-1a was sent to Washington and why it was sent to Hamburg and what you know about the alleged fact that the person who was to make the interrogatory was at Hamburg?
DR. SIEMERS : Mr. President, I am from Hamburg myself and in November of the preceding your I talked with the witness and I gave the address when I put in my application with the general secretary for the first time. Perhaps a misunderstanding arose in some way with the other officer who transmitted the interrogatory. Perhaps they looked for a witness by the name of Schulze in some other place. The name of the Admiral is Otto Schulze and it is quite possible that someone also was looked up. being looked for and I, on my part, answered that the witness would not have to be looked for.
MR. DODD: I think the Tribunal might be interested in knowing that Dr. Siemers himself just returned from H amburg a few days ago and I think he has been there two, three times since he asked for this interrogatory. Now, if he knows where this witness is all he had to do while he was up there was to go to a military government officer, submit his questions, got them answered and bring them back and I think it is a little unfair to blame the general secretary under these circumstances.
DR. SIEMERS: I am exceedingly sorry that Mr. Dodd considers it necessary to blame me in this way. I was told that an interrogatory could not be given to the witness by me. The interrogatory meant for Admiral Albrecht, that interrogatory I brought back with me from Hamburg on the request of the general secretary for the statement of oath had been omitted. It is a matter of course for me to deal and cooperate with the general secretary in matters of this kind. However, I have submitted this interrogatory and I cannot understand how Mr. Dodd could accuse me and blame me when I do not bring the interrogatory buck with me.
THE PRESIDENT: This scorns to me a waste of time. We had better got a report from the general secretary.
MR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I believe that I still have not 3 July M LJG 6-2a been understood.
I am not accusing anyone. I am just asking for permission that I be permitted to submit my interrogatory subsequently.
THE PRESIDENT: We will consider that. We will not make any decision until we have heard a report from the general secretary.
MR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, then I should like to refer to the fact that two of my applications were granted, which were not carried through completely. One was the application dealing with the files of the British Admiralty, specifically referring to the plans by the Allies to land in Scandanavia and Finland. Purely as a matter of form I should like to say that the answer of the Foreign Office, which is known to the Tribunal, is available and the presentation of these documents has been granted by the Tribunal but the request turned down by the Foreign Office. Since this matter has not been dealt with before I should like to make this clarifying statement.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal, I think, has the communication from the Foreign Office.
DR. SIEMERS: But I did not submit it, Mr. President. Therefore, I did not know what the number would be, what exhibit number it would have amongst the files of the Tribunal. Would it be possible, Mr. President -
THE PRESIDENT: You can give it a number, certainly. Give it whatever number you think right.
DR. SIEMERS: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Give it whatever number you think right. What is the number you want?
DR. SIEMERS: May I submit this document as Raeder Exhibit Number 133 either this afternoon or the latest tomorrow morning?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: Then, Mr. President, I had made the request that Hitler's Book " Mein Kampf", the original edition be placed at my disposal. In this case as well, I should like to point out as far as I have been advised the general secretary has made every 3 July M LJG 6-3a effort, for which I am grateful, but the general secretary has not been successful in providing me with this original first edition.
the Prosecution is from the year 1933 and therefore it cannot be a basis for the argument voiced by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: That is a matter of argument.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes indeed. Maxwell Fyfe. As far as I was able to ascertain these documents, which all originate with Admiral Assmann, these documents were submitted with the remark that Admiral Assmann belonged to the staff of Grand Admiral Raeder. This is something which has been mentioned several times in proceeding records. error. Assmann was in a department for historical writings and he was in no way concerned with the staff of Raeder and in this connection it is important -
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got any evidence of the facts you are stating, or do the prosecution accept them?
DR. SIEMERS: I believe, Mr. President, that Sir David will not contradict me.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, we have had it in evidence and we accept the fact that he was in the Navy Historical Section of the German admiralty. My Lord, when I said "staff" I was speaking generally. I did not mean the Operations Staff.
THE PRESIDENT: We need not waste further time about that then.
DR. SIEMMERS: I should like to refer to one point, Mr. President, concerning those four documents: D-897, D-881, D-892 and D854. I hope that in this matter as well Sir David will agree wit me. All of the English translation bear the heading "Diary".
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, it is simply a point of how the compilation of Admiral Assmann should be described. I am quite prepared that it should be described as it is in the original one.
THE PRESIDENT: Well -
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Siemers objected to its being described as a "diary" and said that it should have been described as an index. My Lord, I do not mind what it is described as.
THE PRESIDENT: What does it matter? Let's call it an index then. Is that all your point?
DR. SIEMMERS: Mr. President, this is important insofar as here in this Court many diaries have been submitted under the designation of "diary", and these were entries-
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David says that he will withdraw the word "diary" and you may call it anything else you like. It is only a waste of our time to make this sort of technical points. Sir David agrees with you, and he has agreed to withdraw the word "diary"
DR. SIMMERS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well then. Let's not say anything more about it.
DR. SIMMERS: I quite agree, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I do not wish to take up the time of the Tribunal with all the other and very numerous errors in translation That is the reason why I did not mention them, especially as they refer to the documents Assmann, and we can see from my final argument how important this matter was, and at the suggestion of the Court, I called the attention of the General Secretary to these matters.
THE PRESIDENT: If there are any errors in translation, that matter can be taken up through the General Secretary with the Translation Department.
Dr. Siemers, it is very improper for Counsel in your position to make statements of that sort, which you have no proof of at all. You know perfectly well that when there have been any alleged mis-translation, the matter has always been referred through the General Secretary to the Translation Department and then they have been corrected, and at this stage of the trial for you to get up and say that there are many mis-translations, without any proof of it at all, simply upon your own word, is a most improper thing for Counsel to do, and that is the view of the Tribunal.
DR. SIEMMERS: Mr. President, I humbly apologize, but I do believe that I did not express myself correctly. I am not voicing an accusation, but in the case of many documents, it is not surprising that these errors did take place. I, myself, make mistakes, I am sorry.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody makes mistakes, and everybody as capable of having different opinions as to translations, but you and every ether member of the Defendants' Counsel know that these mistakes, if they are mistakes, will be corrected, if it is possible, and they know that way that it can be done, and, therefore, as I said before, it is very improper for you to got up and allege that there are a lot of mis-translations. I do not want to hear anything more about it.
THE PRESIDENT : Dr. Nelte, have you any documents that you wish to offer in evidence ?
DR. NELTE ( Counsel for defendant Keitel ) : Mr. President, in a letter dated the 1st of July, 1946, I had submitted three affidavits, after having previously submitted them to the prosecution. Those three documents will become K-23, K-24 and K-25. I beg the Tribunal to receive them, since the prosecution, as Sir David has told me, does not object to their being offered in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT : Are they in the process of being translated, or have they been translated ?
DR. MELTS : They are in the process of being translated. I have merely submitted the originals to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT : Very well, then, we will receive them in evidence and consider them.
DR. NELTE : Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT : Dr. Kaufmann ?
DR. KAUFMANN (Counsel for defendant Kaltenbrunner) : Mr. President, I have a few interrogatories which have been granted me by the Tribunal. I have the originals here with me; they have been numbered, and I should like to submit them. The Translating Division has informed me that the translations are not yet at the disposal of the Tribunal, but I assume they will be in the hands of the Tribunal in the next two days.
THE PRESIDENT : Yes.
DR. KAUFMANN : I should like to state, in a few short sentences, what the contents of the documents are, if the Tribunal wishes me to do so.
There are three documents which refer to the same subject: The testimony given by the President of the Red Cross at Geneva, Professor Burckhardt; the testimony given by Dr. Bachmann, who was a delegate to the Red Cross; and then there is Dr.Meier's testimony, and he too was an official representative of the Red Cross. March and April 1945 which they had with the defendant. Also, dealing with this subject, they show that agreements were reached on the strength of these discussions and that these agreements, in turn, led to the fact that thousands of French, Belgian and Dutch, and women and childre, could be returned to their home countries, and also that prisoners of war were discharged as well as the fact that DKD's from concentration camps were allowed to return; that Kaltenbrunner had also given permission for the Jewish camp at Theresienstadt to be visited, and that other camps could be supplied with medical supplies, food, and so on and so forth.
THE PRESIDENT : What numbers are you giving to them ?
DR. KAUFMANN : Professor Burckhardt will be Kaltenbrunner number 3; Dr. Meier and Dr. Bachmann, numbers 4 and 5.
THE PRESIDENT : Yes.
DR. KAUFMANN : A further document is the interrogatory supplied by the former Gauleiter in Upper Austria, Eigruber. That is Kaltenbrunner Exhibit No. 6. Again, I shall only refer to this document which states, among other things, that the concentration camp at Mauthausen had not been created by Kaltenbrunner, as has been alleged by the prosecution, and that he was not responsible for the life there or the entire stay of the internees at the camp. That is stated here in detail and I do not propose to read it. Kaltenbrunner No. 7. Again, I shall not read from it, but perhaps I may say, in just one sentence, that this witness is testifying that he knows that the concentration camp at Dachau, or the two auxiliary camps belonging to Dachau, were not, as has been alleged by the prosecution, to be exterminated during the last weeks or months of the war, but that such a plan had been exclusively contemplated by the Gauleiter of Munich, Geiser. witness Waneck. That will be Kaltenbrunner Exhibit No. 8.
larly to this document. It is a large document, and I shall not read from it. However, I believe I can say that this man particularly know the personality of the defendant and his entire work, as an export, in the course of many years. This witness has, for years, been an important person in the Foreign Intelligence Service He knows Kaltenbrunner's attitude regarding executive questions, and he confirms the fact that Kaltenbrunner had made an agreement with Himmler at the time that he, Himmler, would retain the executive powers whereas Kaltenbrunner would work mostly in the sector of the entire Intelligence Service.
Finally, Mr. President, there are two documents regarding which there has not yet been a discussion. Therefore, first of all, the Tribunal would have to make a decision regarding the relevancy of the documents, and also whether I shall be entitled to submit the documents at all. They are two short letters which I have received. the 4th of April, 1946. The Tribunal may possibly remember that during the taking of evidence by the prosecution there was repeated mention of the fact that the population of the vicinity had had knowledge of the deficiencies. This man, who is now employed by the American authorities, confirms his own experience. In my opinion they are a contradiction of the thesis of the prosecution. is from the well-known clergyman Niemoeller, and which is dated 17 April 1946. Niemoeller and spent some time in Dachau.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, would it not be best if we were heard on the first letter, before the Niemoeller letter is taken up? the reason that it is simply a letter. We have had no opportunity to file any cross-questions or to ask any questions of the man at all. Those letters cone in here. If we are going to submit all the letters that come in--we have bales of them, actually.
is anything here that would really be helpful to the Tribunal. on the other hand, we do not feel that we should deny ourselves the opportunity to make the entire story clear by cross-questions of some kind.
THE PRESIDENT: That is with reference to Schwalber?
MR. DODD: Yes, sir.
DR. KAUFMANN: I did not quite understand what you said, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: What Mr. Dodd said was that they objected to this document from Schwalber because they have not had any opportunity to put any questions to him, either by way of having him called as a witness or by way of a cross-interrogatory. Therefore, they object to the introduction of the document in its present form.
DR. KAUFMANN: Quite, I see. I know that this is somewhat problematical, but the Tribunal has the possibility of ascertaining the evidence value of the letters according to their own opinion. Perhaps I may submit these two very short documents to the Tribunal for then to examine. So far as I know, the prosecution know those two documents because they have been in the Translation Division, and some time ago a representative of the prosecution told me that very probably objections would be raised. Therefore, at the beginning, I told the Tribunal that the Tribunal, first of all, would have to make a decision regarding the relevancy of the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kaufmann, the best way will be for the Tribunal to read the document and to consider it.
We will do that.
DR. KAUFMANN: Very well, Mr. President. Thank you very much.
MR. DODD: I should also like to indicate to the Tribunal that we take the same position with respect to the Niemoeller letter.
THE PRESIDENT: You consider them both similarly, then ? You are objecting also to the Niemoeller letter ?
MR. DODD: Yes, on the same grounds.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Mr. President, still outstanding is the submission of the reply to the Messersmith interrogatory. The reply has been received and translated; I believe, however, that the Tribunal probably has not yet received it.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you offer it in evidence and give it a number ?
DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes, sir; I was going to.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. PANNENBECKER: But I did not expect that it would be the case today and therefore I do not have the number which I sahll give to the exhibit. May I, therefore, request that I be permitted to furnish the number later ?
I have it here, Mr. President, and I shall now submit it as Frick Exhibit No. 14. This is the reply to an interrogatory which is worded as was usually the custom with Mr. Messersmith in answer to interrogatories by other defendants, and I shall come to this interrogatory in detail during my final speech. Therefore I need not present it now. Knorad, and I beg to be permitted to submit it as soon as I receive it.
THE PRESIDENT: That has been granted, has it ? And it is now before the witness ?
DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius.