DR. KEMPNER: We agreed on all the documents already.
30 July M LJG 7-2
THE PRESIDENT: You agreed? Well, very well.
DR. KEMPNER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: And now we will hear the witnesses for the political leaders.
DR. SERVATIUS (Counsel for the S.A.): Mr. President, according to the decision of the 25th of July, I am first to offer the documents and affidavits so that they may be incorporated into the record. Should I do that first or should I fi rst examine the witness? I have prepared it according to the decision.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, do it that way.
DR. SERVATIUS: According to the decision of 25 July, the evidence is first to be submitted. The examination of the evidence, the discussion of the evidence, is to be subsequent, so that first I will only submit the evidence without any special comment. I go according to the decision. Commission whom I want to submit in evidence. There are twenty witnesses. If I am to read it, they are the following. Does the Court consider it necessary for me to read the list of witnesses?
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think you need read the names of the witnesses. If you would offer, formally, the translation of their transcripts of their evidence before the Commission, that will be sufficient.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, very well. evidence, the original of which the Commission has. The record of the witness Mehr is still lacking. is No. 7 on the list. I have not yet received this record. I will submit it later.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the General Secretary will file the original of the transcripts.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And you will give it some number, I suppose, some exhibit number?
30 July M LJG 7-3
DR. SERVATIUS: Perhaps I will adjust the exhibit numbers after consulting with the General Secretary.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I submit.....
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. You will adjust that with the General Secretary as to whether or not it is necessary to give these transcripts on evidence before the commission an exhibit number or not?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, I will adjust it. by the Commission. There are fifty-two of them. The list gives these documents, the translation of which was approved by the Commission, which are especially important. The affidavit? themselves are in the hands of the Commission and I will discuss with the General Secretary in what form it should be submitted as an exhibit. in writing. If the court wishes, I will read this summary which contains an explanation of this document, but I do not believe that it will be of any great use at the moment, but it will be better if It is read later in their proper connection.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I would like to submit further affidavits which are not yet available and which have not yet been dealt with before the Commission. There are 139,000 affidavits which are divided Into various groups. These groups have been gone over by members of the organizations in prison here, and one collective affidavit has been made for each group. Three especially important and typical ones have been added to this collective affidavit and the majority of the pertinent documents belonging to it I could just submit to the Tribunal. I will offer them to the Court if the approval is given us. I will have to reach an agreement with the General Secretary as to how they will be submitted.
In effect, there are twelve different groups --
30 July M LJG 7-4 that will be twelve affidavits with three annexes of the most important ones on the Church question, on the question of low level flying, and on the question of concentration camps there are nine groups. camps in which there are many thousands so that one can get a clear opinion of the inmates of the camp. They are also summed up. I attempted to reduce this great amount of material so that the Court will be in a position to take notice of it and I will be glad to submit the whole thing so that the Court will be able to take official notice of it.
THE PRESIDENT: As I understand it, there are 139,000 affidavits. You have divided then into twelve groups?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And you have twelve collective affidavits for those twelve groups?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: To be appended to each of these twelve collective affidavits are two or three....
DR. SERVATIUS: There are three. In the group which I have just mentioned a larger number Is appended. I would go over it again so that on principle there would be three of each group.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, them the Tribunal thinks that the whole 139,000 should be deposited with the Tribunal, and the twelve collective affidavits with the appended affidavits will doubtless be of great convenience to the Tribunal.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. The Commission yet has to see them and approve them.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commission will receive them and approve them, yes, and then they will be deposited before the Tribunal.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. Then I have to submit the document books which the Tribunal has; the original of the documents I have here, I submit them. A number of documents I can not submit in the original. There are twodocuments which are at the University of Erlangen. That is document PR 15; that is the book "Die Amtstraeger der Partei" (The dignitaries of the Party). And the document PL 58; it is a book of the law of the NSDAP (Das Recht der NSDAP) by Dr. Heim and Fischer. All others I have submitted. A large part of the documents are from collections of regulations and from books which are already in the library of the Prosecution. The title of these collections of regulations is shown by the heading of the document concerned in the document book. I ask that these collections of regulations and books may be consulted in the original. They are in the library of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, subject to any objections.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. the Commission, and now, with the approval of the Court, I shall call my witnesses. Kauffman. fallows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Will you state your full name, please?
A. Karl Otto Kurt Kauffmann
Q. Will you repeat this oath after me: pure truth and will withold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath).
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down. BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. You were a Gaulieter from 1925 to 1928 in the Gau Ruhr and from 1928 to 1945 in the Gau Hamburg?
A. Yes.
Q. How many people lived in these Gaus?
A. In the Ruhr about seven to eight million; in the Gau Hamburg about 1.8 million.
Q. Do you know anything about conditions in other Gaus?
A. Approximately, yes.
Q. In 1921 you joined the Party and after the dissolution of the Party again in 1925?
A. Yes.
Q. And in the meantime you were a laborer, from 1921 to 1925, in the Ruhr district and in Upper Bavaria
A. No, from 1923 to '25.
Q. According to National Socialist terminology, when is a person a political leader?
A. A man holds this position when he is in possession of the appropriate documents and has the right to wear a uniform.
Q. Were there Block and Cell Leaders among the political leaders?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, will you ask the date of the witness' birth? BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. Witness, when were you born?
A. I was born on the 10th of October 1900.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. Were the Block and Cell Leaders not a different type of political leaders from the political leaders in higher positions?
A. The Block and Cell Leaders were small executionary officers of the Ortsgruppen Leader.
Q. Was the activity of the Block and Cell Leaders subordinate and insignificant to that of the Amtsleiter in the local groups?
A. Under the Amtsleiters of the local groups there were essential tasks and non-essential tasks. These in charge of the essential tasks were more important; now they can but put on the same level as these in charge of the non-essential tasks.
Q. Were not the Block and Cell Leaders dignitaries and especially important political leaders?
A. I have already said that they were dignitaries but small executing organs of the local group.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I wonder if I might make a suggestion for the consideration of the Court. I think it would be more helpful if the translator could use the German term, because we are all used to it in this contact, and continue to use the Ortsgruppenleiter instead of a local group, because when we use a term like "local group " there may be some difficulty as to what the reference is. I just put it for a suggestion. Personally, it would be helpful to me, I don't now if the Court will agree.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. What was the general practical activity of the political leaders? How was it before the war and how was it after the beginning of the war?
A. The activity of the political leaders was according to their office. There were political leaders who were purely technical experts and there were political leaders who had tasks of political leadership. The tasks before the seizure of power were, as in any Party, essentially to recruit for the idea, to organize the Party, and in election contests to recruit votes among the population for the success of the Party. After the seizure of power, the essential activity of the political leaders was primarily the social care of the population and in the realization of the set social aims.
In addition, in organizational questions, training tasks, and propaganda questions. During the war these tasks were influenced by the great welfare problems brought about by the war and events.
Q. How great was the number of political leaders before the war and during the war?
A. I can only give figures from my Gau. I estimate that the number of political leaders in the Gau Hamburg before the war at about 10,000, without branches. The number was greatly limited by the fact that many were drafted during the war.
Q. How great was the percentage of political leaders in your Gau who were drafted for military service?
A. Aside from armament, many political leaders were only honorary officials. A maximum of 10 per cent of the Party were deferred at the beginning of war.
Q. That many remained in the Gau?
A. Yes. In 1944, the age groups of 1900 and younger. For the whole Party in Hamburg there were twelve, with the exception of administration and armament.
Q. Dod you mean twleve per cent?
A. No. Twleve men.
Q. And in percentage?
A. I estimate we had 6,000 political leaders.
Q. The staff of the Gau, Kries and Ortsgruppenleiters were the heads of the technical offices. Did these officials of the technical offices have political leadership tasks?
A. No. The great majority of political leaders and technical officers were concerned exclusively with technical matters of their organizations.
Q. Did the officials of the technical offices take part in discussion or was a distinction made between the closer or more distant officials?
A. That depended on the subject of the discussion. If it was of general political interest a larger circle was included; if it was a discussion which concerned only special offices, the circle was limited to these.
Q. Was the Office of political leader taken voluntarily, as a duty, or on a compulsory basis ?
A. Ore must distinguish between different kinds; before the seizure of po of course, it was voluntary. After the seizure of power, every party member had the obligation and principle of cooperating. I personally considered it important to maintain the principle of volunteering in the Gau under all circumstances because, as you can understand, I did not expect any political success from forced cooperation. I know that the matter was dealt with in a similar way in other Gaus.
Q. Why did party members refuse to take honorary offices as political lea ders; was this done for political reasons orfor personal reasons ?
A. The reasons varied. Some refused because they were too busy in their occupation; that is especially true of many professions during the war and others refused because they did not want to expose themselves politically.
Q. What was the activity of the Blockleiter ?
A. The Blockleiters were the assistants of the Orstgurppenleiter, when it was necessary in peace and in war to approach the population and that was essentially the case in social measures; The Ortsgruppenleiter used the services of the Blockleiters and in the Gau Hamburg the Block and Zellenleit as well as the whole party, in war and peace, were primarily concerned with socila measures.
Q. From where did the Gauleiters get their instructions ?
A. The Gauleiters received their instructions from the Fuehrer. They were directly subordinate to the Fuehrer, on his behalf from the deputy of the Fuehrer and in many cases from theParty Chancellery and behalf of the Fuehrer
Q. Could the Reichleiters also give instructionsto the Gauleiters ?
A. No, the Reichleiters were limited to their specialized offices in the Gaus. The Gauleiter had the right to stop measures originating from the Reichsleiters if he considered them inexpedient. In the case of differences the deputy of the Fuehrer or the Fuehrer himself decided.
Q. How were the Gauleiters instructed on political intentions and measures
A. The basic political intentions and measures of the Fuehrer were made known to us through the party program and in part through his book "Mein Kampf." In this connection, our propaganda and information were brought to our co-workers. After the seizure of power, the Gauleiters were informed of intended political actions, especially foreign political ones, but even domestic ones only after the action had taken place.
Q. Were there orders, instructions, or conferences; what can you say ab*--* that ?
A. There were conferences which took place comparatively seldom.
Q. In which form did these conferences take place ?
A. For the Party leaders, in the form of Reichslieter and Gauleiter conferences. I must clear myself -not conferences but meetings.
Q. What is the difference between a conference and a meeting ?
A. In a conference I see a possibility of discussion. This possibility of discussion in Fuehrer conferences existed without limitation up to the resignation of Strasser in 1932 in a limited form until the departure of Hes and was impossible when Hess was no longer there. From this time on, the meetings were exclusively the issuing of orders at which there was no possibility for discussion or for inquiry. These meetings were directed by Bormann. The other way was the way of circular letters -- by this way of circular letters, by Hess, the deputy Fuhrer -- later through the Party Chancellery, either by direct orders of the fuehrer or orders in the name of the Fuehrer were transmitted to us. That was the customary chain of comm
Q. Did conferences with the Reichsleiters take place ?
A. I do not recall any conference at which all Gauleiters were present with all Reichsleiters.
Q. Did leading political leaders have special tasks outside of their activities as political leaders ?
A. There were high functionnaries of the party who, besides their party office, had state and other offices. There were also those who were limited exclusively to their party office.
received through official party channels; must one make a distinction between
Q. What was the content of the instructions which the political leaders various periods up to the seizure of power, up to the war, during the war ?
A. I have already partially answered that question. I can sum up briefly Before the war, of an organizational propagandistic nature and during the we determined by the tasks of war, essentially social measures.
Q. Did the political leaders receive instructions on point one of the par program which in effect contained the Anschluss of Austria to Germany and di such instructions refer to the preparation of a war of aggression.
A. The political leaders were in no way informed about the Anschluss of Austria, the way in which it was done and the time -- the Anschluss has been Austria's will since 1918 through the law of the then Chancellor Renner, through the result of the plebiscite in 1921 of the Federal state of Salzburg and Tyrol and later through Austria and reaction to the entry or the Anschluss was known or became known to the political leaders.
Q. Did you receive instructions on point two of the party program which refers to the denunciation of the Versailles Treaty; did these instructions refer to the preparation of a war of aggression ?
A. The revision of the Versailles Treaty -- and I emphasize "revision" -was an essential part of our political aims. The political leaders were, before the war and even before the seizure of power, of the firm conviction that this aim by way of revision, that is, by way of negation would have to be achieved. Any other insturction or methods by which to attain this goal, the political leaders never received in all the time before the war.
Q. Did you receive instructions on point three of the program which demand area or settlement --did such instructions refer to the preparation for such a war of aggression ?
A. This point of the program -- I believe it is the point of the program-was understood by the political leaders and they were instructed to that effect, that this meant the return of the German colonies. The discussions on other territories did not arise before the war but during the war. I emphasize "discussion."
Q. What instructions did you receive on the Jewish question which is deal with from point four to eight of the program; did such instructions refer to the removal of the Jews because they would interfere with the war of aggression ?
A. The program points on the Jewish question were set. The attitude on *--* Jewish question varied greatly. The political leaders with whom I was in con tact were instructed by me at least in the interpretation of this point of the program to the effect that this question could be solved only in a constructive way; that is, by a basic change in the existing system. German propaganda on this point never had anything to do with a war of aggression.
of the Party program? Did you receive instructions to eliminate the Church as an enemy of war? any such instructions and such explanations. The political leaders up to the end, in spite of the interpretation of the different personalities of the party.
gave up to this point. The party program was considered as a confession of positive Christianity. That proves that the majority of the political leaders were and r emained members of the church.
Q. What instructions did you receive on point 25 of the party program on the dissolution of Labor Unions? here they to be removed as opponents in war?
A No. Whether that includes my political leaders in the dissolution of the Labor Unions, only a demonstration could have developed. The mass of union members, even before the dissolution of the unions, were members of the NSBO, and thus members of the National Socialist Labor organization.
Q I would like to break off here. The witness Hupfauer, will be questioned. Was not the Anschluss of Austria taking place -- the entry of German troops? Did the political leaders approve of this? informed nor questioned on the entry of German troops into Austria. That they welcomed the Anschluss because it was a historical fact that the will of the people agreed with this act.
Q Was not Alsace Lorraine incorporated into the German Reich? Did the political leaders approve of it? peace treaties. The political leaders were of the opinion that Alsace Lorraine, for the duration of the war, was under the special German Civil Administration, and after the victorious end of the war, the incorporation of this territory in to the German Reich could be considered among German demands, just as after the first world war occurred in the opposite sense. and did the leaders approve of this?
political leadership as a preventative war. This fact indicates that such an explanation, at least at the beginning of this war, was not commented in the instructions to the political leaders, with intentions of annexation. approve this? acknowledges positive Christianity, and deviation from this particular point occurred in some gaus. The church was exposed to some persecution in some gaus. The Fuehrer himself never deviated from the prosecution of the party program.
Q Then you did not approve of this persecution? in my gau.
Q Were not in fact the unions a bolished? Did not the political leaders approve it? development for a great unified labor organization. If there were any doubts the social achievements for the German worker caused them to disappear. book "Mein Kampf", and thus generally known and approved by -the leaders?
A The book "Mein Kampf" was certain known to part of the political leaders. Also the party program. The opinion about both in the Nazi party was like in any other party, that one approved some points. They are the reasons for joining. The other points do not interest one, and -the third group of program points are even rejected. And also in the NSDAP as well, there was a discussion and argument for the final aims of the party, and this process was by no means completed.
Q Were there various tendencies?
Q What groups were they?
A I should like to differentiate between three great groups. The Socialistic group, which in my opinion included the most of the members and followers.
The more Nationalistic group, and a negative anti-Semitic group.
Q What do you mean by a negative anti-Semitic group? Is that the Streicher tendency?
Q To what party tendency do you belong in the party?
Q To what group do the majority of the Reichsleiters belong?
Q The Gauleiters? Socialists.
Q How about the Kreisleiters?
Q The same is true of the Block-u-Zellenleiters? of party members.
Q What is the political influence of the various groups? Socialistic, Nationalistic, or anti-semitic?
A That is very difficult to say. If you speak on influence, I submit that the most of the party members like me believed in the Socialistic tendency of the Fuehrer. But there were men in the entourage who were less interested in Socialism and were more interested in other aims, seems to me probable.
Q Do you agree that the party leadership was Socialist?
A I absolutely agree with the Socialistic aims of the Fuehrer. On the other hand I do not agree with loading men in leading positions with other ideas. aims, why did you not leave these affairs, when you saw the Socialistic policy was going away and the persecution of the church and Jews arose? impression that the Socialist aims had been given up.
almost twenty-five years for a party, it is his duty to fight as long as possible to put through the ends at he understands them and that is not possible outside the party but only within the party. That is one of the essential reasons why I remained in the party.
Q. How were the subordinate Kreis and Ortsgruppenleiter instructed?
A. To answer this question one must make a distinction between the city Gaus on the one hard and the provincial Gaus, on the other hand. together and received their instructions orally. For the provincial Gaus this was mostly done, because of the distance, in writing, that is their instructions were issued orally and in writin.
Q. Were the Kreisleiters instructed to the same extent as the Gauleiters or did they receive knowledge of only less important matters?
A. Up to the beginning of the war I do not recall any case in which my Kreisleiters, and I assume it was similar in the other Gaus, did not learn of everything that I knew of. During the war that was somewhat different for reasons of secrecy.
Q. Did the political leaders receive instructions to commit war crimes or to permit them? How abour the lynching of low level flyers?
A. Such orders as you mention were not known to me in a direct form, that is a direct demand. I assume you are speaking first of the newspapter article by the former Reichsminister Dr. Goebbels; second, of the well-known decree of the Reichsfuehrer SS to the police and third of the repeatedly mentioned circular letter of Reichsleiter Bormann.
Q. Yes.
A. These orders were not clearly formulated in the sense of your question I admit that an interpretation could lead to a development which then led, in individual cases, to the events described here. These orders came through the Gaustabsamt and were then sent from there to the competent Kreisleiters. The circular letter by Bormann was stopped by me in my Gau and I assume that was done in other Gaus too. In view of the fact and considering the intensity of the air warfare and its results, I wanted to keep my political leaders from a dangerous interpretation of this order.
In addition, in view of the Goebbel article and in view of Himmler's decree, I sent the Kreisleiters and police presidents orders to the contrary. I hope that similar stops were taken in other Gaus.
Q. What about the treatment of foreign workers? Did you receive instructions tending toward war crimes in that regard?
A. All instructions which I know of in this field refer exclusively to a demand for support of the social welfare work. For me, as a socialist, it was a matter of course that my agents, that is the Labor Front and the Kreisleiters, were instructed to give positive social care to these workers and I inspected the camps to ascertain whether this was done.
Q. What about the events in the concentration comps in regard to foreigners? Did you have instructions to put foreigners in concentration camp Did you know of events in the concentration camps?
A. I assume that the question of competence for the concentration camps is know to the Tribunal. As the supreme political leader of the Gau -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, I do not know what the witness means by that, that the question of competence with reference to the concentration camps is know to the Tribunal.
DR. SERVATIUS: He did not want to say that he, as a Gauleiter, was not responsible for the concentration camps themselves. He only wanted to explain that he will pass over to his responsibility and that he does not wish to give a long explanation on competence. For that reason he said -- I assume the Tribunal is informed on that matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, are you saying that you were in charge of the concentration camps or responsible for them?
THE WITNESS: No, by no means.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, what do you mean by the competency for the concentration camps?
THE WITNESS: I wanted to interject or say that I might assume that the Tribunal knows of this competency. If not, I am prepared to explain it briefly
THE PRESIDENT: Well, will you explain it briefly.
THE WITNESS: Yes. and in their management were completely outside of any orientation and influence of the political leaders. They had no powers with reference to concentration camps and no knowledge of what actually happened in them. I myself if I wanted to enter a camp had to have a special written approval from the Reichsicherheitshauptamt. I believe that that is sufficient explanation. BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. Were not flyers lynched and was that not so well known that every political leader knew about it and approved it by remaining in office?
A. I have already stated that in the Gau Hamburg such things did not take place and since I myself learned of such cases only as a prisoner, I must assume that my political leaders, like myself, learned of these things only in captivity.
Q. Was the ill-treatment of foreign workers throughout the Reich not so well-known that every political leader knew about it and approved it by remaining in office.
A. The political leaders were bound to their own districts, especially during the war. They could have an insight only into their phere of activity and what I and my political leaders in Hamburg saw of these camps was only positive. The Kreisleiters had the obligation where there were poor conditions, to take steps to remove them, as well as other officials.
Q. What was the relationship of the political leaders to the state organization, its administration and other arrangements?
A. The functions were completely separate, except in those cases in which one person held both positions.
Q. And what relationship did the political leaders have to the SA and General SS?
A. The SA and the General SS were independent organizations with their own chain of command. The political leaders could ask them to support their work.
Q. Did the political leaders have any executive powers?
A. Not at all. If they had no state function, as I said, they were exclusively limited to their party sphere.
Q. Could the political leaders give instructions to the Gestapo or the SD?
A. What is shown from the answer to the previous question. In the State Police and the SD the vigilance over their own organizations was even stronger than in other formations; that was as a matter of course.
Q. Witness, what was your relationship to the Fuehrer?
A. In the first years I venerated the Fuehrer. Later on I still venerated him but did not understand him on many points and the measures which are now ascribed to the Fuehrer I would formerly not have considered possible.
Q. Can the political leaders essentially be considered of good faith in believing Hitler on idealist and that they had no knowledge of the extermination of the Jews and other events?
A. In the correct judgment of their functions and their attitude and what they had to know or could know, this good faith must, in my opinion, be granted to the political leaders without reservation.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no more questions to put to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours) ( The hearing reconvened at 1400 hours, 30 July 1946) BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL EYFE:
Q. Witness, do you remember Hitler saying in his Reichstag speech on 20 February 1938:
"National Socialism posesses Germany entirely and completely. There is no institution in this state which is not National Socialist." do you remember the sense of these words being stated by Hitler?
A. I remember the sense of the words, but not the words themselves. BY SIRDAVID MAXWELL FYFE: 2715-PS. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:
Q. Do you agree with the sense of these words?
A. No.
Q. Do you think it was an exaggeration ?
A. I am convinced that not all institutions were National Socialist at the time.
Q. But you would agree that the vast majority of institutions were National Socialist?
A. They were about to become National Socialist, but that had not been finished.
Q. So you would agree that what Hitler states as a fact was the aim for which he was working?
A. Yes.
Q. And the method by which he was working for that aim was through the system of political leadership conducted by the Leadership Corps?
A. The objective could be reached only in part by that way.
Q. It was one essential method or possessing Germany in the sense of getting complete control of the minds and hearts and feelings of the population of Germany, was it not?
A. No, in my opinion, only the beginning.
Q. Only the beginning? But that was the work which had gone on from 1933 up to 1938, when these words were spoken by Hitler?
A. That was part of the success of the Party before the seizure of power and after the seizure of power.
Q. Let me just put a few words of Hitler's to show you how he expresses it "National Socialism --" It is the same speech.
"National Socialism has given the German people that leadership which, as a party, not only mobilizes the nation but organizes it."
Is Hitler correct in giving that description of the leadership?
A. Yes; I would say yes.
Q. Well, now I just want to take the matters which Dr. Servatius has referred to and ask you about the share of the Leadership Corps in them. Let us take the question of the Jews first. Hamburg, did the Political Leadership take an active part in the demonstration of November 1938?
A. As far as I found out about that action from other Gaus, I had to gain the impression that such actions had taken place but not at all, with the exception of individual cases, that the men responsible for these actions had been Political Leaders.
Q. Now, if you say, that will you look at Heydrich's order of 10 November. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:
THE PRESIDENT: What page?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: 79, My Lord. BY SIRDAVID MAXWELL FYFE:
Q. Witness, you will find it on page 96 of the German Document Book.