of the protecting powers and the International Red Cross, which no doubt submitted to the various governments reports on the results of their inspections of and visits to the camps - in accordance with the provisions of the Geneva Convention. No such reports have been submitted here by the prosecution; I shall come back to the charges brought in by the French prosecutor. The fact, however, that the British and the American Prosecutions, for example, have not submitted such reports may well permit the conclusion that the protecting powers did not determine serious violations with regard to the treatment of the prisoners of war in camps. years of the war did not lead to complaints of a serious nature with the western powers--I except individual cases like the Dieppe case--became increasingly difficult for the OKW from year to year, because political and economic considerations gained the strongest influence in this sector. The Reichsfuehrer-SS tried to get the prisoner of war system into his hands. The struggles for power which were caused by this from October 1944 on had the result that Hitler turned over the prisoner of war system to him ostensibly because the Wehrmacht had shown itself too weak, and that it had let itself be influenced by considerations based on international law. ence caused by a rising labor shortage, which was exercised by the Movilization of Labor and the armament sector on Hitler and which was exercised over him on the OKW. of Propaganda Likewise, were included in this actually purely military question. The OKW was engaged in a constant struggle with all those agencies, which for the most part had more influence on Hitler than the OKW. one wishes to understand and value the involvement of the defendant Keitel correctly.
Since he personally had to carry out the functions "by order of" since Hitler always kept the problem of the prisoner of war system under his personal control because of the previously described reasons, the defendant Keitel was almost never in a position to voice his own, that is military misgivings against instructions and orders. the French prisoners of war was "collaboration". Their treatment moved in the direction outlined by it, which through discussions with Ambassador Scapini led to considerable improvements for them. In this connection I refer to the answers to the questionnaire given by Ambassador Scapini, who states amongst other things:
"It is correct, that General Reinecke examined the questions at hand objectively and without hostility, and that he attempted to regulate them understandingly, when they depended on his authority alone. He maintained a different attitude when the pressure exercised on the OKW by the Labor Service and sometimes by the Party made itself felt." French prisoners of war used in the country had almost complete freedom of movement. By virtue of the direct understanding with the Vichy--government, considerable mitigations existed to the rule of the Geneva Convention, after their repatriation by virtue of the armistice-provisions had very considerably lowered the number of the original prisoners of war.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, is there anything very important in these next few pages, until you get to Page 183?
DR. NELTE: It is the treatment of the French -
THE PRESIDENT: If you would only deal with it in a very general way. I should have thought there was nothing very important until you get to page 183 where you begin to deal with the accusation in reference to the Sagan case. You see, it is 12:00 o'clock now.
DR. NELTE: I believe that by 1:00 o'clock I shall be through. May I understand your remark to mean that you would like me to limit my speaking time to one hour?
THE PRESIDENT : That is what the Tribunal's order was.
DR. NELTE : I submitted my request to the Tribunal, and since it was not directly rejected, I believed I could assume that in this particular case my request was granted, but if that is not the case -
THE PRESIDENT : Well, the Tribunal will give you until 12:30 on account of any interruptions which I may have made. I again suggest to you that there is really nothing between 178 and 183 which is of any truthful importance.
DR. NELTE : I hope, Mr. President, that that does not mean that these statements are irrelevant.
THE PRESIDENT : I said "of truthful importance."
DR. NELTE : Yes. I should not like to omit the case which was mentioned repeatedly in the course of the evidence, the case of the 50 air force officers, the Sagan case. and boundless ruthlessness of the orders and of the character of Hitler, who did not for a single instant let himself be influenced in his explosive decisions by the thought of the German Wehrmacht's honor, is shown here. the British prosecution has clarified in how far his name has become implicated in this shocking state of affairs. Although it has been clearly established by evidence that Keitel has neither heard nor transmitted Hitler's murderous order, or that he and the Wehrmacht are not associated with the execution of this order, finally that he opposed by all means in his power the transfer of the escaped officers to Himmler, and at least obtained that the officers who had been taken back to the camp were saved, he has, however, the distressing feeling of consciousness of guilt, not to have recognized at that time what a terrible blow German military prestige was bound to suffer throughout the world by such a measure. laid before the defendant Keitel document 1650-PS which deals with the treatment of escaped prisoners of war.
This, Mr. President, deals with the so-called "Bullet Order". Considering the lack of time, I should like to shorten this case, but I have to deal with it because it is one of the most significant accusations against my client, and I shall only summarize.
During his examination, Keitel made the following statement :
"This document 1650-PS, opens like a document which has been seized at a police station, with the words "The OKW has decreed the following."
Keitel says :
"I have certainly neither signed this order of the OKW nor seen it; there can be no doubt about that. I cannot explain it; I can only state a presumption as to how this order came about." such an order could have come to the office which issued the order. Then he refers to another document, 1544-PS, a document which contains all the orders and directives concerning escaped prisoners of war, but not that one order referring to the escaped officers and non-commissioned officers in question.
The witness Westhoff confirmed that the concept "Stufe Roman III" and its meaning were unknown to him and to the office of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces Prisoner of War Affairs. He also stated that on entering office on 1 April 1944 he did not find an order of this nature, and thus no file notice.
It was absolutely unclear what was meant by that Bullet Decree. I believe evidence presented here has cleared that up, evidence by co-defendant Kaltenbrunner, who on his part had never spoken to the defendant Keitel about that matter.
On page 187 we find that Kaltenbrunner said, "I had not heard of the Bullet Decree. It was an entirely new concept for me." Therefore, I asked what it meant. He answered that it was a Fuehrer Order; he did not know any more. I was not satisfied with this information, and on the same day I sent a teletype message to Himmler asking him to please permit my rearing an order of the Fuehrer which was called "Bullet Decree". A few days later, Mueller came to see me by order of Himmler and submitted to me a decree which, however did not originate from Hitler but from Himmler, and in which Himmler stated that he was passing on to me a verbal Fuehrer Order." out the letter's knowledge, Hitler must really have given such an order to Himmler as it is stated in Document 1650-PS which was submitted here.
For the subjective judgment of the facts of the implied crimes the elementary importance lies in the knowledge of them, not only for the conception of guilt, but also for the Prosecution's ultimate resolution, the concurrence, the toleration as well as the omitted counter action.
The knowledge of facts comprises :
1) the knowledge of the facts;
2) the perception of the establishment of a goal;
3) the perception of the methods;
4) the conception and faculty for conception of the consequences. have possibly drawn any conclusions from the textual knowledge of the NationalSocialist Party Program and from Hitler's book "Mein Kampf" I have already stated the reasons for which Keitel had no perception of a realization by force. intended war of aggression until the war against Poland broke out. This opinion is certainly a subjective truth, because of Keitel's honest disbelief in a war with Poland, not to talk of any intervention by France and England . This perception, shared by Keitel and other high-ranking officers, was based on the fact that the military potential was too insufficient to risk a war and possibly expect a victory; the more so as it would evidently develop into a war on two fronts. This belief was also supported by the Non-Aggression Pact with the USSR of 23 August 1939.
However, that is not the core of the problem. The speeches by Hitler before the generals, beginning with the conference of 5 November 1937, in which Keitel did not take part, permit from time to time the clearer recognition the Hitler did not wish to attain his aims so or so, that is, if not through friendly negotiation, then through war, or in any case, through employment of the Wehrmacht as an agent of pressure. There can be no doubt about that. One may argue over whether the context of the speeches of Hitler, concerning which there are no official notes or records of minutes reproduce more or less the text of the conference correctly. But on what there can be no doubt is that they permit Hitler's point of view to be clearly recognized.
Accordingly, one must differentiate whether one could believe that a definite plan would come to its execution or whether one had to win the recognition that the general intention for aggression existed.
If this recognition did not exist, then this can only be explained by the fact that the generals did not take the question war or peace into their consideration from the basic attitude assumed. According to their point of view, this was a political question, for which they did not hold themselves competent, since, as has been said here, the bases for such a resolution were not known to them and, as the defendant Keitel has testified, the generals had to have confident in the leadership of the State, that the latter would only undertake war for pressing reasons. This is the result of the traditional principle that the Wehrmacht is probably an instrument of politics, but may not participate in politics by itself, a principle, which was taken over by Hitler in all its severity. The court may decide whether this is to be valued as an excuse.
Keitel explained on the witness stand that he recognized the orders, directives and instructions which had such terrible consequences, and that he drew them up and signed them, without allowing himself to be disconcerted by the possible consequences.
This testimony leaves three questions open: the question of the methods in the execution of the orders; the question of conception of the consequences which actually occurred; and the question of the dolus eventualis.
The defendant Keitel in his affidavit (Doc Book II, No.12) presented the influence of the SS Police Organizations on the conduct of the war and the involving of the Wehrmacht in the occurrences. The record of evidence has shown that numerous Wehrmacht commanders applied such terrible orders partly not at all, partly in a milder form on their own responsibility. The methods of the SS, which gave these orders their terrible effect, were strange and therefore unimaginable to the soldier Keitel, grown old in fixed concepts. According to his testimony, these effects also did not become known in their terrible extent.
The same holds true for the Fuehrer Decree "Nacht und Nebel." If he did not allow himself to be disconcerted by the "possible" results, as he forwarded these orders, the dolus eventualis in regard to the results taking place can still not be affirmed. It is much more to be assumed that if he had not been able to recognize the horrible effects, he could have accepted the consequence, in spite of the prohibition of requests for resignation, which would have freed him from the hard necessity of knowing and would not have pulled him into the whirlpool of events ever more from month to month.
There may be an hypothesis to this: the testimony, however, has furnished certain pertinent facts for the correctness of this. The five-fold attempt to leave his position and the resolve to end his life, which was witnessed by Colonel General Jodl, give you the opportunity to attribute the sincere desires of Keitel. have already presented: the unequivocal and, as Keitel says, unconditional duty of the soldier true to his military oath, to do his duty obediently to the bitter end.
it leads to crime. It must also be considered, however, that with a soldier, he is accustomed to measure by other standards in war. If all high officers, Field Marshal Paulus as well, represented the same point of view, one may thus not understand that perhaps, but no one will deny them the honesty of their convictions. during this trial why he did not refuse to obey or revolt against Hitler, that these questions were not taken by him into consideration, even for an instant. According to his words and behaviour, he is an absolute soldier. Did he place the guilt on himself with this conduct? high treason if he realizes that the execution of an order or of a measure violates the international law and/or the laws of humanity. question, which is the "authority" which "allows or orders" criminal high treason. This question appears to me of significance for the reason, because the legitimation is to be established who can allow or order the general to commit high treason, who can "bind and absolve." the Chief of State, identical with the Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht, does not come into the question; the question is merely whether there is an authority which is above or outside of the individual State Authority, which could "bind or absolve." the Middle Ages, has no longer an actual importance in the sense of constitutional law, this power can be impersonal and moral only; the highest command of the unwritten, eternal right is put by the German poet Schiller into the words: "The power of tyranny has a limit......." It is only one of the so manifold poetical revelations of world literature, which expresses the deepest yearning for freedom by all peoples.
the state, there is a limit for the restriction of freedom. Should this be overstepped the state of war of national order against the international power of world conscience will result.
It is important to establish that up till now there did not exist a statute of international law of this kind. It is understandable for the relativity of the conception of freedom in various states and the anxiety of all states about their sovereignty stand in incompatible opposition against the recognition of an international authority.
The authority which "binds and absolves" which absolves us off guilt before God and the people, is the universal conscience which becomes alive in every individual. He must act accordingly. The defendant Keitel did not hear the warning voice of the universal conscience. The principles of his soldierly life were so deeply rooted, governed his thinking and actions so exclusively that he was deaf against all considerations which would lead him away from the path of obedience and faithfulness, as he understood them. this most terrible drama of all times.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann -- yes, go on, Dr. Kauffmann.
DR. KAUFFMANN (Counsel for defendant Kaltenbrunner): Mr. President, may I first say that I have a few changes which I will announce when I come to them. I will take about two hours altogether, Mr. President.
May it please the Tribunal. The present trial is world history, but world history full of revolutionary tensions. The ghosts which were called are stronger than the cry of the suffering peoples for justice and peace. Ever since deification of man and humiliation of God chaos as an inevitable consequence and punishment is afflicting mankind with wars, revolutions, famine and despair. If my country was culpable of the greatest guilt, then permanently, it does the greatest penance a people has ever done. erroneous, because they are second-rate. And no one of my listeners is in a position to call me a liar, when I assert that the present trial does not begin at the end of a period of wrong, to make an end to it, but is being surrounded by the surge of the waves of a furious torrent, on the surface of which the wreckage of a civilization, guarded through the centuries, is floating hopelessly, and on whose deep demoniacal bottom the foes of the true God, of Christian religion and, therefore, of any Justice, are lurking.
heart-piece, is seriously ill. It suffers from the spirit of negation and from the humiliation of the dignity of human nature. Rousseau would curse his own maxims if he had lived to see the radical refutation of his theories in these years of the 20th century. The peoples had announced the "liberty" of the Great Revolution, but in the course of but 150 years they have in the name of the same liberty created a monster of cruel slavery and ungodliness, which was able to escape earthly justice, but not to elude the living God. have to pass before the probing eye of history. I do not doubt that the selected judges are striving to serve justice as they see it. But will not this problem indeed be beyond solution? The American chief prosecutor stated that in his country important trials seldom begin before one or two years have elapsed. I do not need to throw light upon the deeper core of truth contained in this practice. Would it be possible for human beings, torn between love and hate, justice and revenge, to conduct a trial immediately after the greatest human catastrophe ever known and constantly driven by the statutory demand asking for time-saving, swift proceedings, in such a way that they are entitled to the thanks of manking at a time when the waters of this second deluge will have receded into their former bed? crime and atonement would have been adhered to in the course of the present proceedings? independence of such nature as to feel subject to no other considerations than to conscience and to God Himself. first place in the mind of the governing class of the nation; Hitler had humiliated law to the rank of a prostitute of purpose. But this Tribunal intend to furnish proof to the world that allprofit for the peoples is based on law alone. And no other thought than unselfish justice could arouse more joy and hope within the heart of people of good will. the Charter, but I am asking whether any justice on earth has and indeed could not have been found, if Might acknowledged Reason so far as to grant the enemies a regular trial, but could not make up its mind to crown this tribute to Reason by appointing a truly international tribunal:
Nineteen nations appear to have approved of the legal basis of the Charter; we do not know this, but Mr. Justice Jackson indicated it -- it is far more difficult to apply the written law. intend to hold the entire German nation guilty, but the records of this Tribunal, which history will someday scrutinize attentively, contain nevertheless many things which, to us Germans, appear to be false and therefore, embittering. They unfortunately also contain repeatedly explicit questions of the French Prosecution; to what extent, for example, certain crimes against humanity both in and outside Germany have become known to the German people. Indeed, the French Prosecution has asked explicitly; "Could those atrocities remain, on the whole, unknown to the entire German nation, or have they come to its knowledge?" These and similar questions are not suitable for solving such a difficult and tragic problem with even the slightest regard for the truth. To the extent that evil, which always grows and manifests itself organically, gets the upper hand among a nation, to that extent every individual who has reached the age of reason bears some guilt for the catastrophes of his country. But even this guilt, lying in the sphere of metaphysics, never could become a collective guilt of a nation, unless every individual also in this nation had incurred an individual guilt. But who would be entitled establish such an individual guilt without examining thousands of individual circumstances? this is aimed at -- to establish the so-called national guilt for any crimes actually committed against peace, humanity, etc., during the past years on the part of the omnipotent state in whatever possible form. One should bear in mind most carefully the condition of the Reich before 1933.
This has been done sufficiently here and I do not speak about it. Hitler monopolized such deep-reaching concepts as the proverbial German diligence, homeliness, sense of family, willingness to make sacrifices, aristocracy of work and hundreds of other things. Millions believed it; millions did not. The best people did not abandon the hope, that they would be able to avert the tragedy foreboded by them. They flung themselves into the stream of events, collected the virtuous ones and fought, visibly or invisibly, against the bad ones. Can a plain, uneducated man in the street be blamed for not being ready to deny H itler,offhand every credibility as a man who knew how to pass as a seeker of truth, and who every time showed to peacelovers the highly extolled palm of peace? After the assumption of power large sectors of the German people could feel themselves at unison with many other peoples on earth. Therefore, it is not astonishing that gradually, with the approval or the tolerance of other countries, Hitler acquired the nimbus of a man unique in the century. Only the German who lived during the past years in Germany and did not scour from abroad, as with a telescope, the German space, is finally authorized to give information concerning the historical facts of an almost impenetrable method of secrecy, the psychosis of fear and the actual impossibility of changing the regime, and herewith to comply with Ranke's demand to historians, to establish "how it came to pass".
Let me say a few words about that secrecy. This trial has shown clearly that the state itself gathered all knowledge of such facts as would discredit its prestige and knew well how to guard it. The men under indictment here, who have been called conspirators -- or most of them at least -- have been the victims of that peculiar system of secrecy. for the biological destruction of the Jewish people, which for years tried, under the designation of a "final solution" to camouflage the terrible intentions.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann, it seems to the Tribunal a very long preamble to the defense of the defendant Kaltenbrunner, who has not been named at allyet in what you have said. Is it not time that you came to the case of the defendant whom you represent?
We are not trying a charge against the German people. We are trying the charges against the defendant. That is all we are trying.
DR. KAUFMANN: Mr. President, in the next few sentences I would have concluded that, but I would like you to understand that in the core of my case there is the serious word "humanity", and I believe that I am the only one of theDefense Counsel who intends to go more deeply into that subject, and I ask that I be permitted to make these few statements. I shall come to the case Kaltenbrunner very quickly.
THE PRESIDENT: On page 8 you have a headline which is, "The Development of the History of the Intellectual Pursuit in Europe." That seems rather far from who matters which the Tribunal has got to consider.
DR. KAUFMANN: Mr. President, may I remind you this question has been discussed by the Prosecution and especially by M. de Menthe. I do not believe that I can carry out my task if I take these tremendous crimes only as facts. An opportunity must be given to give a short description -and it is very short. After a few pages. I come back to the case of Kaltenbrunner, and my plea will be the shortest one, at any rate, which will be presented here.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr.Kaufmann, the Tribunal proposes, as far as it can, to decide the cases which it has get to decide in accordance with law and not with the sort of very general, very vague and misty philosophical doctrine with which you appear to be dealing in the first twelve pages of your speech, and, therefore, they would very much prefer that you should not read these passages. If you insist upon doing so -- there it is, but the Tribunal, as I say, do not think that they are relevant to the case of the defendant Kaltenbrunner. They would much prefer that you would begin at page 13, where you really come to the defendant's case.
DR. KAUFMANN: Mr. President, of course, it is extremely difficult for me to present a plea now which is very much condensed already and to condense it even more. It is really difficult. I hope that the Tribunal will appreciate that.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kaufmann, there has been nothing condensed in what you have read up to the present. It has been all of the most general type.
DR. KAUFMANN: May I read a few sentences then about the Defense?
THE PRESIDENT: Could you summarize the general nature of what you wish to say before you come to the defendant Kaltenbrunner?
DR. KAUFMANN: Yes, I shall try it. I will read only a few sentences in an important chapter which concerns the task of the Defense. I say that the Defense has been established by the Charter, and I deal with the question of how, in the face of such excesses, a Defense can still realize its task. I say further that in this trial, error and truth are mysteriously mixed, probably more so than they ever were in a great trial of law. To try to establish the truth makes the Defense Counsel an assistant of theCourt, and justification exists for the Defense to doubt not only the credibility of the witnesses but also the documents. It justifies the Defense Counsel to state that such reports, although they may be admitted by the Charter in evidence, can only be accepted with serious objections, because none of the defendants or defendants' Counsel or neutral observers could have any information on the way they were brought about.
of the law, but I believe also within the framework of power. tion for peace and happiness, elevate the representative of a terrible heresy to the position of their Fuehrer, I might say to a demiged; this Fuehrer abusing the faith of his followers in the grossest imaginable way; this people then in the bondage of a slave not being able to find the strength for a timely open resistance and tumbling into the hugh abyss of annihilation of its entire racial, political, spiritual and economic existence. All of this, in the truest sense of the word, is tragic. Had the individual man in the street, the mother in the home, and her sons and daughters, been asked to choose between peace or war, never voluntarily would they have drawn the lot of war. The unsatisfactory element of this trial is the absence of the man-
THE PRESIDENT: Are you now reading from some part of your document?
DR. KAUFFMANN: I am reading a few sentences, Mr. President. This is at page 7 of the German text.
THE PRESIDENT: Can't you summarize the argument you are presenting?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Mr. President, I would appreciate it if I could be told once more whether the Tribunal does not wish at all that I read the ideological background so that I may put some light on it for the understanding of these crimes against humanity, crime against the peace. If the Tribunal states that it desires that I not make any such statements at all, then of course I shall follow the wishes of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Kauffmann, if you think it is necessary for you to read this passage you may do so; but, as I have indicated to you, the Tribunal think it is very remote indeed from any question which they have to consider.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Thank you very much. Then I shall skip a few pages and shall only present, for five pages, the subject which I have just mentioned.
That begins with a heading and then continues: and consequences, may be viewed, regardless from what side-
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing): What page are you on?
DR. KAUFFMANN: It is at page 9 of my document book, and the heading is "Development of the history of intellectual pursuits in Europe."
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
DR. KAUFFMANN: I continue: It may be viewed from the perspective of the historic spectacle of German history, or from the supposedly constrained course of economic forces, from the sociological separation of its people, from the racial character conditions of the German, or from the mistakes which the other brothers and sisters of the family of nations, living in the same house, committed in the political sphere. but always it brings to light only partial knowledge and partial truth. The deepest and, at the same time, the most fatal reason for the phenomenon Hitler lies in the metaphysical domain. Anyone, however, who looks at the world and its aspects only from the viewpoint of economic problems, may arrive at the belief that the war--the first as well as the second World War-- could have been avoided through a reasonable distribution of the wealth of the earth. Regarded by themselves alone, economic reasons are never able to change the face of the earth. Therefore, the change of the standards of living of the German people, their deterioration, the demoralization of the national soul by the Treaty of Versailles, inflation, enormous unemployment and others became rather the outward cause for Hitler.
Still it is possible that catastrophes might be delayed by years or decades if certain outward living conditions make the mutual relationship of the nations and people apparently happy. At no time, however, can a wrong idea be extinguished through economic disposition alone and be deprived of its destructiveness for the individual a d for the nations, unless the people overcome and replace these ideas by spiritually better ones.
"In the manner in which the name of God is used by the people and nations," says the famous Donoso Cortes, "lies the solution of the most feared problem." mission of the nations, of the races, for the great changes in history, for the rise and downfall of empires, for conquests and wars, for the different characteristics of the nations, yes, even for their changing fortunes. Socialism intellectually. He spoke of the sin against the spirit, from which all crimes originated. He called National Socialism a coarser Darwin. fall of which was incalculable and unpresdictable. He was the exponent of an ideology which was atheistic and materialistic, to the last degree. Socialism is eliminated through the complete defeat of Germany, and although the world is now free of the German threat, proclaimed by all nations, there has been he change for the better. No peace has filled our hearts, no rest has come to army corner of human existence.
It is true, the collapse of a powerful state with all its physical and spiritual forces will send out waves for a long time, as the sea is stirred into motion when a large stone is thrown into the calm water.
But what happens at present in Europe, and in the world, is much more, indeed it is something quite different from the mere ebbing away of such an occurrence. the deep; they are fed by mysterious and constantly emerging forces. These are those restless ideas, aiming at the disaster of nations, of which I spoke. And nothing could give me the lie when I maintain that everybody, victor and vanquiched, is living in the middle of a crisis which disturbes the conscience of the individual and the nations as a monstrous, apparently inevitable nightmare, and which, beyond the punishment of guilty individuals, causes us to look out for those ways and means which can spare humanity from an even greater catastrophe.
In his "Confessions of a Revolutionary", Proudhon, the clear-sighted socialist wrote the memorable words: "Every great political problem also always has within itself a theological one." He coined this phrase one hundred years ago. It is most timely that the American General MacArthur, at the signing of the Japanese surrender agreement is said to have repeated these deep words in their essential meaning, by saying: "If we do not create a better and greater system, death will be at our door. The problem is, fundamentally speaking, a religious one".
The changes in religious values determine history. They are the strongest motive powers in the cultural process of humanity. Permit me to show you in a few, rather large strokes, the intellectual and historical forebears of National Socialism.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kaufmann, it is one o'clock, and I must say that the last two pages which you have read seem to me to have absolutely nothing to do with crimes against humanity or with any case with which we have got to deal.
I suggest to you that the next popes, headed "Remaiisance, Subjectivism, French Revolution, Liberalism, National Socialism" are equally completely unlikely to have any influence at all upon the minds of the Tribunal.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours).