AAt the latest, they ceased one year later. These were joint conferences. Funk and I, at the beginning, had as many as three to four meetings with the Fuehrer, and these meetings became fewer during the winter of '33. Later on, in '34, after Hindenburg's death, they ceased completely.
Q Who made these press reports to Hitler after that?
A The Chief of Press of the Party, Dr. Dietrich.
Q And with the exclusion of Dr. Funk?
Q Dr. Lammers, the defendant Funk later on became President of the German Reichsbank. Do you know anything about the facts regarding the person who would decide about credits to be given to the Reich by the Reichsbank?
A That decision was the Fuehrer's. The way it happened in practice was that the Minister of Finance would apply for a credit. He did that in duplicate. One letter was addressed to the Reich Minister of Finance, with the corresponding instructions, and the second letter was addressed to the President of the Reichsbank.
Q Dr. Lammers, these technical details don't really interest us. What we are interested in is this. Did Dr. Funk, as President of the Reichsbank, have any influence regarding the question whether, and to what degree, the German Reich would be given credit, by the Reichsbank, or had a right to call on the Reichsbank for that? All I received was those two documents. It was entirely a matter for signature. They were signed in one second by the Fuehrer, and then they were sent back. I had never had an order to negotiate with Mr. Funk, or previously, with Mr. Schacht, or the Minister of Finance. That was entirely a matter for signature; that is all it was. instructions came from Hitler and not the Reichsbank President?
Q Dr. Lammers, you have already mentioned this three-man college, or three-man collegium, which was formed during later years. Regarding this three-man college or collegium, it has been stated by the prosecution that Funk was a member of this committee, shall we say, and that he was the last resort for the entry of laws during the war.
A You can't say that at all. I stated already that these men acted independently, each in his own sphere, and that they hid the right to publish decrees, with the agreement of the others; and they were very few, and quite insignificant decrees.
Q You mean low-grade decrees?
Q Furthermore, Dr. Lammers, the defendant Goering stated during his examination that the powers which Dr. Funk has as Plenipotentiary for Economy, I think in 1938, were mainly transferred to the Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan, or that, therefore, at any rate, Dr. Funk's powers, generally speaking, existed only on paper. I should be very interested in knowing whether these powers of the Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan were not inly in fact, but formally too, transferred to the Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan, in other words, Goering. Fuehrer.
Q When was that, approximately?
A The Four Year Plan was created in '36, and it was extended in 1940 for another four years. The special powers which Funk surrendered to the Four Year Plan are based on an agreement between Reichsmarshal Goering and Minister Funk, an arrangement which, as far as I know, had the Fuehrer's approval.
Q Dr. Lammers, you have already told the Tribunal that, I think, since 1938, no meetings of the Cabinet took place any longer and that, in the end, Hitler even prohibited informal discussions among ministers. Can you tell us anything regarding the question if, and how often, the defendant Dr. Funk had an opportunity -- during the seven years he was minister -- to talk to Hitler, to report to him, and so on and so forth? reported more frequently.
to see the Fuehrer. On many occasions he wasn't even consulted for conferences, conferences at which he ought to have been consulted. Quite often he complained to me about that; and I tried in every way to include him in such conferences as far as I could, but I didn't always succeed.
Q Dr. Lammers, I have noticed that records and minutes have been read out here where it is clearly said, and I think, by you, that the defendant Funk, as Minister for Economy, had asked you that he should participate in this or that important conference, and that you had expressly stated in that recprd that the Fuehrer had refused that, or that the Fuehrer had prohibited it. May I show you an example? For instance, I recollect a meeting of January 4, 1944 -- which is document 1292-PS -- where questions of labour were discussed. In those minutes it says -- once more written by you -that the application from Funk to participate had been refused, Can you recollect such cases, and can you give us the reasons?
A Yes, I can remember such cases, but I don't know whether they were mentioned in the record. Quite possible I informed Mr. Funk -- and I tried everything to arrange that Funk would be consulted. The Fuehrer, however, refused.
Q The reason? reasonable objections from Funk. He was sceptical about him; he just didn't want him there. Funk that Rosenberg, in accordance with an order of Hitler, was appointed for the coordination of natters in the Eastern Territories. That message, you are supposed to have passed on to Goering and Keitel, as well as to Funk. From that fact the conclusion has been drawn by the prosecution that Funk was one of the deciding persons who were concerned with the preparation for aggressive war against Russia. the defendant Funk at that time?
A Either the Fuehrer told me to -- which I don't think was the case -or I was under the impression that because of economic reasons Funk would be interested in that message. It was because of a personal relationship that I passed it on to him, and I can't recollect today that I had any particular reason. of course, I passed the same message on to others, but probably not in writing. I think the others may have received, it verbally. mentioned when Rosenberg was given that task. He was supposed to be a political representative for Eastern Territories. He was to work on questions referring to foreign peoples.
Q Dr. Lammers, roughly at the same time -- that is to say, the spring of '41, and shortly before the beginning of the Russian campaign -- you are supposed to have had some further discussions with the defendant Funk. They are supposed to have been concerned with the question of how one could possibly expect the foreign political situation, with reference to Russia, to develop. On that occasion you are supposed to have told defendant Funk something regarding the reasons why Hitler considered the possibility of a war against Russia as predominant. What did you tell defendant Funk at that time regarding these preparations for the war at one time or another? which the Fuehrer had given me, that there had been troop concentrations in Russia which had been observed, which allowed the conclusion to be drawn that a conflagration with Russia might occur. These were the words the Fuehrer used. He said that the thing with Russia would happen and that he wished that one man -- and that was Rosenberg -- should concern himself with Eastern questions, since the possibility of an armed conflict with Russia did exist. That is probably what I told Funk. I can't imagine what else I could have told him.
Q. At that time, Dr. Lammers, you are supposed not only to have mentioned troop concentrations on the Russian side along the eastern frontiers of Germany, but also the Russian march into Bessarabia.
A. Yes, it is possible that that was the case. Bessarabia, very proabbly. I may have even mentioned the fact that discussions which had taken place with Russia, with Molotov, had had an unsatisfactory result.
Q. In that connection, and since you have referred to the discussions with Molotov, you are supposed to have told Defendant Funk particularly that Russia was making considerable demands in the Blakans, and regarding the Baltic Sea, and that for that reason, because of these demands, Hitler did expect the possibility of war. Could that be correct?
A. It is possible that we have talked about it, but I can'c recollect it for certain.
Q. And then you know that an organization was established under the heading central planning board. You know that, don't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Defendant Funk was made a member of the central planning, and I think this was at the end of 1943. Is it correct that Funk, when he joined the central planning board, was participating no longer and no longer interested in the use of laborers in the German Labor market?
A. I believe that Funk's only interest in central planning was to the extent that he was receiving raw materials for civilian production.
Q. You mean in the country?
A. Yes, in the country. That was as far as he was interested in central planning board, since he was responsible for distribution of these goods, and civilian production had been transferred to Minister Speer. I think that was at the very moment when the minister for armament and munitions had been changed to minister for armament and war production. I think it was in 1943. Thus Funk, was, of course, very interested in raw materials, but workers, from that standpoint, interested him very little, in my opinion, since he hadn't enough raw material to allow the civilian production to work.
Q. And then, Dr. Lammers, I have one last question: Can you remember that Defendant Funk in the year 1944 -- I think it was in February and later on during subsequent months -- has visited you and told you of his sufferings and sorrows regarding the unsatisfactory position which he was occupyling as minister of economy and plenipotentiary for economy, and that he talked to you about the question on that occasion whether his conscience would allow that he retain his position as president of the Reichsbank and Reich economy minister, and, if yes, then why he could do so or if he could resign from his position? Perhaps you can talk about that.
A. I have discussed that question frequently with Funk. It was in 1943, but particularly in 1944. I know that he was considerably worried and that he wanted very much to have an opportunity to take his worries to the Fuehrer personally. If he did remain in office then it was only because he said that during wartime he couldn't resign from his position -- that wouldn't be the right thing for a rood German to do, to resign during wartime. But that was his greatest wish -- to be able to report to the Fuehrer regarding the economic situation, and particularly about the interferences committed by the gauleiters in various districts, and that it was his greatest wish that he could report to the Fuehrer regarding the war situation and that he could talk to the Fuehrer about a possible end of the war. All this took place in the beginning of 1944. I made several attempts to take Funk to the Fuehrer, and I nearly succeeded, since I had camouflaged the real reason and pretended that there was another reason -- the question of some finances. waiting for days and days he refused, the Fuehrer refused to hear him, probably due to Bormann's efforts. So he just didn't succeed in getting to the fuehrer and I didn't succeed in taking him there.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I have no further question.
DR. DIX (Counsel for Schacht): Mr. President, if you wish to close the session at five, then I gun afraid I have to tell you that I won't be able to finish by five, and I am reluctant to break my examination. May I ask you, therefore, if we should extend the session or whether we should break now.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you better go on, Dr. Dix; we have nearly ten minutes. BY DR. DIX:
Q. Witness, other witnesses and yourself -- you because of great experience and on the strength of your position as chief of the chancellory at the seizure of power until the collapse, have stated that applications to resign were prohibited through Hitler.
I don't want to put any more questions on that subject, therefore. I merely want to refer to the attempts to resign which Schacht had actually made. May I ask you, therefore, to start with, to answer the general question with yes or no; did Schacht apply to resign or not? with you. I can't expect you, of course, without any help, to recall individual occasions. May I have your permission therefore, to help your memory along in connection with the first question. or rather gave notice with reference to them, and when you visited him. Wat that the time of the first resignation attempt?
A I remember that very accurately, since Schacht's application to resign was considered unpleasant by Hitler, aid he gave me the task to put the matter right with Schacht. Subsequently I made several personal visits to Schacht, but he refused to withdraw his resignation, and he gave as his reason that he couldn't approve any longer of the credit policy of the Fuehrer. He, so he says, was afraid of an inflation and from that he would have to protect the German nation.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, is it necessary to go into the details? We gather that there are several offers to resign. Is it necessary to go into the details of each one? Doctor, that in March 1937 Schacht did offer to resign. continued for yet one more year, although the Reichsbank law had intended to have him there for four years. issued a decree referring to mines about which it was Schacht's view that this was an infringement of his sphere, and there was a second offer to resign, wasn't there?
Q And didn't Schacht write aletter on that occasion which was addressed to Goering, the 5th of August, a copy of which he had sent to Hitler through you? Can you remember that?
A Yes. That letter was the reason why Hitler dismissed Schacht afterwards.
Q Now we are coming to the war. Is it right to say that during the war Schacht repeated his offers to resign? May I remind you, for instance, of the sunnier of 1941 and a memorandum which Schacht wrote to Hitler regarding the necessity of an immediate peace? listen to foreign broadcasting stations. Schacht had been forbidden like many others to listen to foreign stations, andhe considered that a reason for a complaint and offered to resign, whether in writing or verbally I can't tell you. But at any rate he was refused, and later he submitted a memorandum in which he mentioned the end of the war and the political, economic, and military situation. I had to reply to Schacht and tell him that the Fuehrer had read the memorandum and had nothing to say in reply. Subsequently, in 1942, Schacht made another inquiry, and told me to ask the Fuehrer if the Fuehrer was disposed to receive yet another memorandum. To that the Fuehrer gave me the order to write to Schacht and tell him to refrain from submitting any further memoranda.
DR. DIX: I could, Mr. President, quote the important points of that memorandum for the witness, if the Tribunal knows the details of that memorandum, which I haven't got and which could only be ascertained from the memory of the witness. I should very much like to put them before him. If on the other hand the Tribunal is of the opinion -
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got the memorandum?
DR. DIX, No, we have only got that memorandum in our memory -- that is to say, Schacht remembers the contents.
THE PRESIDENT: If the memorandum is lost and you can prove the loss you can put the contents of it to the witness. If you prove the loss of the memorandum you can put the contents to the witness. If the contents are not relevant it is no good even for the witness. Are the contents of the document relevant?
DR. DIX: Those points which I propose to quote, yes I do consider them relevant and they arc not very long either, they are short.
THE PRESIDENT: So far as the question of proof is concerned the rule is, I think, if the document has been lost you can prove the contents of it and you can put it to the witness. Yes, you can put the points to him Dr. Dix.
DR. DIX: The question which you put to me involves considerable responsibility. At the moment I can assure you that in accordance with my conviction it has been lost but whether I can prove that it has been lost, that is something I cannot take the responsibility for at the moment. I am convinced it has been lost.
THE PRESIDENT: Herr Schacht presumably is going to say it was lost. You, of course, cannot prove it yourself but I mean you can prove it by Schacht.
DR. DIX: Yes, Schacht willconfirm it when he becomes a witness on the stand. BY DR. DIX: great successes in Russia by the German Army and Schacht wrote in that memorandum to Hitler that Hitler had now reached the peak of his success and that this was the most favorable moment for him to aim at peace. During any further duration of the war -
MR. DODD: I suggest, would it not be more proper for counsel to ask this witness first of all whether or not he recalls the contents of the memorandum before reading what purports to be the contents.
THE PRESIDENT: I think he should, yes.
DR. DIX: It has been confirmed by the witness that he recollects the contents more or less, Dr. Lammers has said so.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you had better put it to him sentence by sentence and not all at once.
DR. DIX: I am not proposing to read it, your Lordship, I am merely trying to repeat the contents as Schacht remembers them. I cannot read it, of course, since I have not got it.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you ask the witness if he remembers what the contents were, not putting it in a leading form.
DR. DIX: Yes, I shall certainly ask him. But I think he has answered that he cannot remoter the details accurately so I am trying to give him some aid for his memory by giving him the main points.
THE PRESIDENT: Ask him what he does remember of it. BY DR. DIX:
Q Well then, Dr. Lammers, without my presenting the main points to you, what do you remember? economy, both as to Germany and abroad, that now in the autumn of 1941 the most favorable moment had come to begin negotiations to end the war and I think he also explained the world situation but I cannot remember how. He sketched the political situation in other countries. He talked about America Italy, Japan and he compared the factors. The Fuehrer then looked at the memorandum and put it aside and lie said:
"I have already disapproved of that, I do not want to have it." stated that the dropping out of Italy was merely a question of time, since the opposition group around the king would not give in until Mussolini was brought down?
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. The Tribunal will adjourn now.
(Whereupon at 1710 hours the Tribunal adjourned to reconvene at 1000 hours on Tuesday, April 9, 1946.)
Military Tribunal in the matter of: The
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Dix. BY DR. DIX: soon after your answers and that you were replying to my questions too quickly.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I should like to take up a matter before the examination of the witnesses, if I may ask the indulgence of the Tribunal. its abuses to such an extent that I must close the document room to printing documents for German counsel. Now, that is a drastic step but I know of nothing less that I car do and I submit the situation to the Tribunal.
We have received from the General Secretary's Office an order to print and have printed a document book number one for Rosenberg. That document book does not contain one item in its 107 pages that by any stretch of the imagination can be relevant to this proceeding. It is violent anti-semitism and the United States simply cannot be put in the position even at the order, which I have no doubt was an ill-considered one, of the Secretary of the Tribunal to print and *---* to the press just plain anti-semitism and that is what this document is. Now, I ask you to consider what it is. would call, with the greatest respect to those who think otherwise, rubbish and this is an example of the rubbish we are required to print at the expense of the United States and I simply cannot sit silent any longer.
"The Philosophic methods suited to bourgeois society is a critical one. That holds true in a positive as well as a negative sense. The rule by the purely rational form, the subjegation of nature, the freeing of the autonomous personality, all that is contained in the method of thinking classically formulated by Kant.
At the sane time, though, it speaks also of the isolation of the individual, the near depletion of nature and community life, the connection with the secluded world of forms which all critical thinking is striving for."
Now, what in the world are we required to print that for?
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Mr. Jackson, this red light is on. I do not know why.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I suppose that I am going too fast, Your Honor. of this documents book. "actually, the Jews, as to the Canonites, the Phenicians and Carthaginians, represent a bastard race"; --- and it goes on largely upon the theme. Then it goes on "The Jews are arrogant in success, submissive in failure, shrewd and crooked wherever possible, greedy, of remarkable intelligence and not creative." I do not want to take this Tribunal's time, but last night we receive an additional order to print 260 copies more of this sort of thing and I have had to stop the presses, and we cannot accept the duty of printing this stuff unless it is reviewed by the Tribunal. rejected by the Tribunal and nobody pays the least attention to the Tribunal's rejection, and we are ordered to print. Now, with the greatest deference, I want to say that the United States will print any document that a member of this Tribunal or an alternate certifies, but we can no longer print these things at the request of the German counsel nor at the ill-considered directions which we have been receiving.
DR. THOMA (Counsel for defendant Rosenberg): To start with, I want to make the following statement, namely that on the 8th of Larch, 1946, I was granted expressly the permission that I could quote philosophical books in my document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Thoma.
DR. THOMA: Consequently, I have based my work on the assumption that Rosenb* ideology is an execution of the so-called new Romantic philosophy, and from seri* now Romantic philosophical works which have been recognized by scientific quotati* Secondly, gentlemen, I have attempted not to submit any anti-Semitic book, and what has just been read to me must be absolute mistakes of translation. work of a recognized Jewish scientist by the name of Isma Elbogen; and , thirdly, I have quotedfrom a book which had been written by a Jewish iniversity professor, Max Kreutzxtein, and I have deliberately refrained from making anti-Semitic propaganda today in this courtroom.
I want to request, therefore, that these documents be once more investigated to See whether this is a fact serious or trite I still maintain that the works which I have quoted from American, English, French and other recognized scientists are of value and the quotations which Mr. Justice Jackson has just made regarding that bastard race originate, as I know, from nonGerman scientists, but I have to look at that once more. so as to show that they are in any way non-scientific or not prejudicial.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, the Tribunal thinks that there must have been some mistake in sending the translation division this book of documents without having it presented to counsel for the Prosecution first. The Tribunal made an order some time ago, saying that counsel for the Prosecution should have the right to object to any document before it is sent to the translation department. Some difficulty then arose because documents had been mostly in German. There was a difficulty about counsel for the Prosecution making up their minds as to their objections until they have been translated. That difficulty was presented to us a few days ago; I think you were not in court at the time, out no doubt other members of the United states counsel were here. We had a full discussion on the subject, and it was then agreed that counsel for the Prosecution should see counsel for the defense and, as far as possible, discuss with them and point out to them the documents which counsel for the Prosecution thought ought not to be translated, and, in case of disagreement, it was ordered that the matter should be referred to the Tribunal. So that, so far as the Tribunal are concerned, they have done everything that they can to lighten the work of the translation division Of course, in so far as documents have been presented to the translation division for translation, which the Tribunal had already denied, that must have been done by mistake because the General Secretary's office no doubt ought to have refused to hand ever to the translation division any document which the Tribunal had area already denied, But the general priciples which I have attempted to explain seem to the Tribunal to be the only priciples upon which we can go in order to lighten the work of the translation division. That is to say that counsel for the Prosecution should meet counsel for the Defense and point out to them what documents are so obviously irrelevant that they ought not to be translated.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, if Your Honor please, I do not think it is a mistake. It arises from a fundamental difference which this Tribunal has not, I think, made clear.
That the issues here are: Counsel says that he thinks he should try the new Romanticism of Rosenberg. We are charging him for the murder of four or five million Jews. The question is of ideology here. The only purpose in over referring to the anti-Semitic sentiments is the motive. There is no purpose here to try the question of anti-Semitism or the superiority of races, the fundamental difference in viewpoint. They believe, and, of course, if they can try this issu* with this Tribunal as a sounding board, it forwards their purpose. They believe in trying that issue.
The first we get is this book with the order to print it. We cannot tell whe* they are going to present something in the document room. I simply must not become a party to this spirit of anti-Semiticism. The United States cannot do it, and the Tribunal's directions to counsel are simply being ignored. That is the difficulty here.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not know if you have in mind the order which we made on the 8th of March, 1946, in these terms:
"To avoid unnecessary translation, Defense Counsel will indicate to the Prosecution the exact passages in all documents which they propose to use, in order that the Prosecution may have an opportunity to object to irrelevant passages. In the event of disagreement between the Prosecution and the Defense as to the relevancy of any particular passage, the Tribunal will decide what passages are sufficiently relevant to be translated. Only the cited passages need be translated, unless the Prosecution required the translation of the entire document good, but the ruling seems, up to the present at any rate, to the Tribunal to be the best rule that can be laid down, and we reiterated it after full discussion a very few days ago.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I am calling Your Honor's attention to the fact that Your Honor's order is not being observed and that we are being fed these document to print without any prior notice. The boys in the press room are not lawyers; they are not in the position to pass on these things. I do not have the personn* My personnel, as this Tribunal well knows, is reduced very Seriously.
I cannot undertake it in the pressroom here after an order comes from the General Secretary's office, a review of what can be done.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, but did you -
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The order is not being carried out; that is the difficu
THE PRESIDENT: You mean that none of these documents were submi tted to the counsel for the Prosecution?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The documents were not submitted to counsel for Prosecution. They came to the press room with an order to print from the General Secretary's office. That is what I am arguing, a grievance; one I shall have to remedy. We are in the very peculiar position, Your Honor, of being asked to be press agents for these defendants. We were ordered to print 260 copies of these stencils that I have. The United States cannot be acting as press agents for the distribution of this anti-Semitic literature which we protested long ago was one of the vices of the Nazi regime, particularly after they have been argued on and have been denied by the court. This, it seems to me, is a flagrant case of contempt of court, to put these documents through after the Tribunal has ruled or. them and ruled out this whole document book of Rosenberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, so far as any documents are concerned, they ought never to have been submitted to the translation department.. Might not the Tribunal hear from Sir David Maxwell Fyffe because he was here on the previous occasion, the last occasion that we dealt with this subject?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: May it please your Lordship, my understanding of the matter is that the Rosenberg documents had been processed -- that was what we were informed -- before our last discussion of the matter, and I therefore suggested to the Tribunal that the practical application of the proceedure should begin with the documents of the Defendant Frank. That is what I said to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Then my recollection is that after we made this rule of the 8th of March, 1946, Counsel for the Prosecution -- I think for all four of the Prosecution, and I rather think the document came in signed by the United States but I an not certain of it -- pointed out that there were great difficulties in carrying out this ruling of the 8th of March, because of the difficulty of Counsel for the Prosecution making up their minds about what documents were irrelevant, having regard to the fact that they had to be translated for them to do it. Is that not so?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That difficulty arose with Dr. Horn over the Ribbentrop documents. But a written application was made to the Tribunal to vary this rule of the 6th of March 1946, and it was then after that that we had the subsequent discussion in open court when we came to the conclusion that we better adhere to the rule of the 8th of March, and I see about Rosenberg that the documents -
THE PRESIDENT: These documents had been processed already beforehand.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Since our last discussion of course we have been trying to get this procedure going. Dr. Dix has met Mr. Dodd and myself on the Schacht documents, and I understand that other learned Defense Counsel are making arrangements to meet various members with regard to theirs. But before this time, before the matter arose sharply on the Ribbentrop documents, there hadn't been any discussion'with Counsel for the Prosecution. That is the position.
THE PRESIDENT: But what I am pointing out is that that was because the Prosecution were not carrying out the rule of the 8th of March. It may have been impossible to carry out, but they were not carrying it out.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I don't know exactly how you mean "The Prosecutio* weren't carrying it out."
THE PRESIDENT: Both the Prosecution and the Defense, I suppose, because the application which came to us after the ruling of the 8th of March was made on behalf of the Prosecution, that they had such difficulties in getting translations fo the documents that they proposed another ruling.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I an sorry, my Lord, that we haven't carried it out. It is the first tine that anybody suggested to me -
THE PRESIDENT: I don't mean to criticize you.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have taken immense trouble, cooperated in every way. I wasn't aware that we were at fault I am very sorry if we were.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't mean that, Sir David, but I think there was a difficulty in carrying this out, and I think there was a proposal that the rule should be varied. I will look into that and see whether I am right about it. I remember seeing such an application and then we had the subsequent discussion in open court in which we decided to adhere to this rule of the 8th of March, and no doubt this difficulty has arisen, as you pointed out, because of the Rosenberg documents having been processed before.
(Brief conference on the Bench.)
Mr. Justice Jackson, wouldn't the best course be for you to object in writting to all the documentary matter with which you take issue, and then such writtings will be dealt with by the Tribunal after argument.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: But, your Honor, the Tribunal has once rejected the documents, and yet we get an order to print. The Tribunal's orders are not being observed, and -- I don't want to criticize Counsel -- but we have had no opportunity to pass on these. These stencils that I stopped running last night are not anything that has been supplied to us. They have no possible place in the legitimate issues of this Tribunal and we will get nowhere talking to Dr. Thoma about it. He thinks their philosophy is an issue. Tribunal -- if I may make a suggestion, which I do with great deference; I may be a biased judge of what ought to be done; I never pretended to complete impartiality--that the Tribunal appoint a Master to pass on this.
We won't finish this by discussion between Dr. Thoma and anybody I can name. My suggestion is such an official pass on these documents before they are translated. If the Master finds a doubtful matter he can refer it back to you. We shouldn't be in the position of either agreeing or disagreeing with them in any final sense, of course. I realize it is too big a burden to put on the Tribunal to pass on these papers in advance and too big a burden on the organization to keep printing them. Paper is a scarce commodity today. Over 25,000 sheets have gone into the printing of a bookthat has been rejected. I think there is no possible way out except that a lawyer with some idea of relevance and irrelevance represent this Tribunal in passing on these things in advance, rather than leaving it to Counsel.
I wouldn't even venture to sit down with Dr. Thoma, because we start at odds. He wants to justify anti-semitism and go into its philosophy, while I assert that it is the murder of Jews that is an issue here, not whether the Jewish race is or is not liked by the German people. We don't care about that. It is a matter of settling these issues.
GENERAL RUDENKO: With the Tribunal's permission, I would like to add a few words to what Mr. Jackson has said. has already expressed a supposition that there is a mistake. And I would like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that this mistake took place too often. I will permit myself to remind you about the documents in connection with the Versailles Treaty, which were denied by the Tribunal, the Tribunal will remember that a considerable amount of time was spent on listening to the reading of the documents which were presented by Dr. Stahmer and Dr. Horn, and I would like to remind the Tribunal about another fact, when another decision of the Tribunal was violated. Perhaps it was done by mistake; perhaps not. It took place when one of the documents was presented by Dr. Babel, before it was accepted by the Tribunal as evidence. And it seems to me that it would be very useful if the Tribunal would find it possible, for the purpose of saving time, to guarantee in more decisive manner the compliance not only by the Prosecution but also by the Defense Counsel of the rules set out by the Tribunal.