Now certainly there was time after the denial to have stopped our spending this amount of money and effort printing things that had been prohibited, and which were prohibited twice.
I won't characterize it; the facts speak for themselves.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, can you help us about the dates at all? Can you help us as to this? Mr. Justice Jackson has stated that after these three documents had been refused in the first instance, you then renewed your request for them on the 10th of March, 1946, and that on the 23rd of March, 1946, they were finally denied.
Well now, when did you send the documents to the translation room?
DR. THOMA: The documents, I remember, went into the Translating Department before March 8. There had been a session regarding admissibility of documents, and it was around about that time, and before a decision had been made, that I had been contacted by a representative of the Translating Department, who asked about the document book, since they had heard that it had been completed. to use this philosophy. I gathered the impression that the Tribunal would not want to use these documents; consequently, I submitted a written application to the Tribunal so that these documents would be granted me. When, subsequently, I was informed that anti-Semitic books would not be permitted me -- which I think occurred a few days later than the date of that order of the Tribunal -- then I did, of course, pass on the information saying, "I draw your attention to the fact that these books were not granted me."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, quite naturally, you aren't able to give us the exact dates at this moment, but we will look into this matter fully,
DR. THOMA: May I just please repeat that I myself have pointed out that quotations were contained in the book which had been refused? And please, may I ask you to draw the conclusion from that, that I was not trying to do anything which was not permissible?
THE PRESIDENT: I think, if the document had been denied, the proper course would have been to withdraw the documents or to communicate with the Tranlation Division notifying them that they should be withdrawn.
would be for the Tribunal to consider Mr. Justice Jackson's suggestion. That is, in order to relieve the prosecution of the task of deciding upon or objecting to the documents which are to be submitted to the translation rooms, that matter should be considered by someone deputed by the Tribunal as a master.
The Tribunal thinks that Mr. Justice Jackson, or the Prosecutor's Committee, should apply in writing to strike out all the irrelevant documents which they complain of in the document book on behalf of the defendant Rosenberg, which has been submitted. which they have established with the consent of the prosecuting counsel. in saying that the Court Contact Committee of the prosecutors did apply to the Tribunal on the 29th of March, 1946 -- and I have the document before me -- requesting the Tribunal to vary the ruling which they had made, namely, Ruling 297, made on the 8th of March, 1946.
DR. THOMA: My Lord, may I say that subsequently I visited the officer and told him that the documents must be taken out, that they must not stay in. However, it transpired that hundreds of copies had already been bound and prepared or processed, and it was said, "Well, after all, they aren't going to be quoted, so they might as well stay in, since they aren't going to be quoted." I expressly made the request to have them taken out of the document book.
Of course, I didn't mean that the Tribunal were asking the Prosecution to apply in writing to strike out documents which have already been rejected.
Those documents, of course, will go out without any application; but if and insofar as there are other documents contained in the Rosenberg document book to which the Prosecution object, then they might conveniently apply, although, of course, that matter will have to be discussed in open court. provided to be provisional, and the application for the final admissibility of the documents has to be made in open court. The Tribunal will have a report made to it by the General Secretary as to these dates and these matters. And now the Tribunal will adjourn for ten minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal have come to the conclusion that it will gave time if the Defendants are called first as the first witness in the case of each Defendant; and, therefore, in the future the Defendant must be called first unless there are some exceptional reasons, in which case Defendant's Counsel may apply to the Tribunal and the Tribunal will consider those reasons for calling the Defendant in some position later than first witness.
Yes, Dr. Dix. BY DR. DIX: had asked my questions too soon after you have completed your answers and that you were answering too soon after I have completed the question. I was told the interpreters couldn't follow and the stenographers couldn't either. I shall adopt a procedure by which I shall introduce a pause between question and answer, and I am asking you to do the same. I am sure that the Tribunal won't give it the interpretation that you are not sure of your answers. various offers to resign which Schacht had presented to Hitler, and you had talked regarding several arguments referred to a peace which Schacht had raised during the war and delivered through you to Hitler or wanted to have them submitted to Hitler. We had last spoken about such a memorandum of the summer of 1941, and I had the feeling that the Tribunal had objections based on procedure, because I had quoted the contents of the documents Which I have no longer in my hands and which were contained in the famous strong box which has been confiscated on Schacht's farm by the Rod Army and which the Russian delegation had not yet succeeded in finding.
I had the impression that the Tribunal had objections because I was putting the contents of the document to the witness and having him confirm it to me. Although very pretty passages are contained therein, I am perfectly willing to break off here and to put the questions to Schacht if the Tribunal would prefer that.
May I have the Tribunal's decision on that question, in which case I would cease to discuss the memorandum any further.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal had no objection to your asking this witness about it, but they thought you ought not to put a leading question and that you ought to ask the witness if he remembered the document and wha t were the contents of the document -- not to put to him that it was such and such in the document or some other passage in the document, but just to ask him what were the contents of the document.
DR. DIX: The dividing line between leading questions and putting the content of a document to the witness--a document which is not recollected exactly by the witness--is rather fluent. Therefore, I would prefer to have the further content of the document confirmed by Schacht, which would get us over these difficulties. I shall therefore leave that point and come to another sphere.
Q (continued) Witness, you quite correctly stated yesterday in answer to a question within the framework of the defense complex of Funk, through my colleague Dr. Sauter, how in 1939 it was the practice that Hitler would simply decree that the Reichsbank Would have to give such and such a credit. I want to avoid a mistaken impression, and I want the original position of the Reichsbank clarified for this Tribunal. original independence. This was a decree in which Hitler had ordered that he would decide upon credits which the Reichsbank would have to give, and this decree of Hitler's became effective through a law of June 1939 and had the powers of a law.
position of the Reichsbank, and therefore I am asking you how was the situation before January, 1939, that is, during Schacht's being in office. Was it possible at that time for Hitler to decree that such and such credits were to be given, or was the Reichsbank still independent and could it refuse such credits or give notice about them?
recollect to such an extent that I can give you a complete answer and make a constructive statement just when and how they were altered. I can confirm one thing, however, that is, that during the period when Schacht was president of the Reichsbank, he, with reference to these credits, must have made certain difficulties for the Fuehrer. During these discussions between the Fuehrer and Schacht, I was not present but I know from statements made by the Fuehrer that regarding those credits, he, the Fuehrer, met considerable difficulties originating from Schacht. They were inhibitions on Schacht's part which in fact brought about Schacht's resignation from his position as president of the Reichsbank. On the other hand, I know that the moment that Funk became president of the Reichsbank, these difficulties ceased to exist. These were obviously removed under the laws referring to them. They had been removed also by the order which the Fuehrer had given in that connection, because when Funk became the president of the Reichsbank, these grants and credits were merely handled in such a way as I had described it yesterday. Yesterday, when I described the technical procedure, which was in the main handled in that manner, that such demands for credits for the Reichsbank were submitted to the Fuehrer and were merely a question of a signature for him, they were a matter which passed through my hands.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think he is able to answer your question, really. I don't think he is able to answer the question which youput to him, which was as to the position before 1939, so I think you must rely upon the decrees and documents.
DR. DIX: I shall clarify it right away. BY DR. DIX: the books. Can't you recollect that the Reichsbank had previously been independent?
A Yes, yes; I recollect that but I also recollect that certain legal alterations were made but I can't remember just when, and without seeing the books and laws, I can't tell you exactly what was the content of these new laws; in other words, just what the limitation was put upon figures, and all I do know is that the position of the president of the Reichsbank had later on been reduced considerably in comparison due to the orders given by the Fuehrer.
Q Yes, I see that is enough. Now, as to the same category. It isn't difficult, not anyway for a German who has lived here all that time, but particularly for a foreigner, to understand the power instrument, the power machine of the Third Reich. I think that after the statements that you had made yesterday in answer to the questions which my colleague Sauter put to you didn't produce every statement you could make. You could probably say something more of it, if I didn't know what you knew; if I were an outsider, then your statements yesterday would give me the impression: "Well, the way it was, was that the Minister of the Interior couldn't give orders to the police and the Minister of Economy didn't direct economy independently; all ministers in the Reich were without proper authority and couldn't give instruction to the commissioners for the occupied territories."
MR. DODD: If your Honors please, I respectfully suggest that Dr. Dix is really testifying here. I think perhaps he could put his questions more simply and we can get along faster and get the answer better.
DR. DIX: Yes, I can certainly put my questions more precisely but I can't *---*t it unless I first of all ascertain by a statement what has not yet been *---*id up to now, so that I can't really put a briefer question? since the *---*ibunal probably wouldn't understand it, which is what I am trying to avoid I can assure Mr. Dodd, I shall not ask anything uncertain and I shall *---* precise question indeed, and I will do it right now.
*---*DR. DIX: *---*uld like to ask you if all these ministers were so hindered and so *---*ered in their authority. What were and who were themen and the *---*orities who could interfere and who could direct these spheres of *---*sdiction and who were exercising the power? That is my question. And may I mention that as far as Frank is concerned, you have already mentioned of course Himmler's interference, but we must go into that question more deeply so that the Tribunal can see clearly what we are talking about.
because there were a number of institutions which the Fuehrer had created as a counterplay against other ministers and probably deliberately firstly; and secondly, it was due to superior authority, departments, which was to achieve a certain amount of unity in certain spheres which should be the only ones to have power. In the last category, I want to quote the most typical example, which is of course the Four Year Plan. In this connection, the Fuehrer desired a unified command which was not to depend on the wishes of individual ministers and consequently, he created the Four Year Plan. In other sectors, in somewhere or other, the minister was supplied, with, shall we say, a counterpart; for instance, the Minister for Labor had the appointment of the Commissar Dr. Ley put against him, who deprived him of certain jurisdiction.
workers was concerned. In the economic sphere there was the Minister of her Production.
In the Ministry of Interior or the actual authority was
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, the Tribunal thinks that once the general with by individual ministers.
That explains the general system and when it come; to the individual defendants they can explain how it applied to
DR. DIX: Ishall certainly take that into consideration and therefore lost certain spheres of jurisdiction.
We are also concerned with the fact
THE WITNESS: The Reichsleiter Bormann was the successor to Reichsmini BY DR. DIX:represented the wishes and concepts of the Party.
By being appointed to the position of Secretory to the Fuehrer and by a decision stating that in the sphere of the state a considerable number of things would have to go through Bormann's hands, it was thus achieved that he was included to a considerable degree into the machinery of the state, something which I had to experience personally a great deal since I, who had originally at least had an opportunity to talk to the Fuehrer alone, could no longer achieve that and could only got to the Fuehrer through Bormann.
Since most of my reports were given in Bormann's presence everything that could previously be dispatched to other departments had now, even matters of state, to go through the Secretary of the Fuehrer, that is to say Bormann.
Q This meant, of course, Bormann's influence in various spheres and on reports.
A Yes, he had that influence. All those matters from various departments which did not reach the Fuehrer directly through me and which called for his immediate decision now had to be made in writing and had to go through Bormann. I would then receive a message from Bormann saying this or that is the Fuehrer's decision. In other words, the possibility of a personal report which would enable me to talk on behalf of the minister for whom I was reporting ceased. After all, they were not natters which concerned me directly; they were complaints or protests or differences of opinion which I could no longer take to the Fuehrer personally. the Gauleiters too, who also reigned or governed? Chancellory, that was the proscribed channel. Since G auleiters, as a rule, however, were simultaneously in one person town governors or supreme presidents, these positions were, of course, somewhat mixed up and a number of matters instead of going through the prescribed channels went through the minister concerned and through me, coming directly from the Gauleiter and going directly to the Reichsleiter Bormann. There are, in fact, cases where this channel had been chosen deliberatly.
power, you have made statements yesterday referring to cases of Frank and Frick. Cannot that statement be extended in fact to all loading officials, explained by an increased power given to Himmler and the SS and his police?
Q You mean to say you did not quite hear?
Q In other words, interference into spheres of influence. Now, you have talked about Bormann and you have talked about Gauleiters. Yesterday you talked about Himmler and you dealt with the police and the SS with reference to the cases Frick and Frank and I am now asking you whether this increasin power on Himmler's part and on the part of the SS, if that did not affect the other spheres of influence just as much?
I am now coming back to Schacht. We have talked about the offers to resign and we now come to the actual dismissal. Were ministers who were to be released usually given a letter of dismissal by Hitler? Hitler? dismissal is concerned, was considerable attention paid by you to the wording or rather by Hitler. alterations or improvements personally.
DR. DIX: The two letters of resignation, Mr. President, which decree Schacht's dismissal from his job as President of the Reichsbank and Minister without Portfolio are included in my document book as evidence and I do not propose to put them to the witness. There are only two sentences I propose to quote. BY DR. DIX:
it says:
"Your name particularly will always be connected with the first period of national rearmament." that sentence. He thought there was a limitation of the praise he was getting. What is your view, you who was the originator of that letter? it was generally an expression of thanks was being made to Schacht and this additional sentence is due to a personal alteration by the Fuehrer as far as I can recollect because that was not my cup of tea to make such a subtle difference here. incidentally is not signed by Hitler but is signed by you by order of the Fuehrer:
"The Fuehrer, with regard to your general attitude in this present fateful struggle of the German people has decided to temprarily relieve you of your position as minister."
In other words, Schacht's feelings regarding his personal safety could not have been exactly pleasant when he saw that sentence. May I ask you, therefore, whether this letter was drafted by Hitler and was Schacht's anxiety unjustified? partly known to me. All I know is that a letter from Schacht to Reichsmarshal G oering was the cause of the Fuehrer's dismissing Schacht from his position. The reasons were communicated to me by the Fuehrer. He was very violent and at that session and his general attitude was such that he wanted even more severe expressions to be used but I put it in the way in which you find it in this letter as I thought that was fairly tolerable. Fuehrer did not tell me about, of course. But to begin with he had certainly ordered me to use the word "Temporarily."
in detail regarding the gradual development of the years 1933 until the autocracy of Hitler's had been achieved. The answers which you have given to my colleagues yesterday have in the main dealt with my questions and I don't want to repeat them, but two questions I would like to use to clarify the position. The law giving powers, which was issued in '33, which is the law which deprived the Reichstag of its powers instituted a dictatorship. On that law I am asking you: Did this law give the powers to Hitler or the Reich Cabinet or the Government. to the Reich Government, and the Reich Government in turn used this power to alter the Constitution, both expressedly as well as silently, by creating the Law of Habit which -
Q Yes, thank you very much. You said that yesterday. Thank you very much, witness; we don't want to go into that again. Yesterday you pointed out in parenthesis that this Reich Government didn't necessarily consist of National Socialist only, but that its majority belonged to other parties. You only mentioned the German National Party, led by Hugenberg, Dr. Mueller and Dortmund, and you mentioned the Stahlhelm (steel helmet), the head of which was Seldte, but you had forgotten--and that is why I am asking you--to quote the Central Party. Is it true that von Papen came from the Central Party?
A Yes, of course, that applies, naturally, but I don't know whether von Papen was a member of the Central Party or not. of the State. I am going to give it a different name, but let's not discuss it. All I want you to tell me is whether during that gradual development to complete dictatorship there were actual laws; what they were, and what their significance was.
Don't you consider the law after Hindenburg's death, which was altering the status of the Reich President as the position of the Chancellor, and had the consequence that the bearer of that position was also the supreme military leader-don't you consider that law as a further milestone in that gradual development? development, particularly because it happened after the decree through the Reich Government, referring to a plebiscite which produced the result of nearly one hundred per cent and had been confirmed.
Q And further laws did not appear in connection with the development?
A No, I don't recollect any.
Q Neither can I. And the other question is whether you can call the Law of Habit of the state and whether you can--that is a question I don't want to raise with you at the moment. I think we are of different opinion in that connection.
DR. DIX: Your Lordship, I have now finished my questions to the witness Lammers on behalf of my client, but my colleague Kubuschok is away on duty. I don't think the aeroplane took off yesterday; so I don't think he has been able to get back. He has asked me to ask questions on behalf of von Papen, and I was going to ask the Tribunal whether I could put them--there's really only one short question--and whether I ought to ask it now or whether I should wait until Papen's defense comes up in its proper time.
THE PRESIDENT: No, new, because this witness will not be called again except for some very exceptional reason.
DR. DIX: No, I didn't mean that. I meant, did you want me to ask the question later today, when the turn of Papen comes in the proper sequence of defendants?
THE PRESIDENT: You may go on now. I think you better ask it now. BY DR. DIX:
Q Please will you remember the Roehm Putsch, the Ruhr revolt. Papen's experiences during that revolt will be discussed later. But do you remember that von Papen, who was Vice Chancellor at the time, on the 3rd of June, 1934, demanded to be dismissed by Hitler and received the dismissal?
A Yes, but I can't tell you for certain whether the date was right, but it happened right about that time. days afterwards, between the 7th and the 10th of July, you by order of Hitler went to see von Papen and asked him whether he was prepared to accept the position of an ambassador to the Vatican? the Fuehrer I was to tell him that he had to expect to be used further, and that in that connection an employment as ambassador to the Holy See was thought of.
But, whether I had had orders to tell him immediately that such an offer was being made, that I cannot recollect now.
Q Can you remember what Papen replied as to what his views were?
AAt that time he wasn't very much inclined to accept such a position.
Q Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
DR. SERVATIUS: Dr. Servatius, for Defendant Sauckel and the organization of the political leader of staff. BY DR. SERVATIUS: Plenipotentiary for Labor. What were the reasons that Sauckel was chosen for that position? be handled by the Minister of Labor with the necessary care, and that this task would, therefore, have to be transferred to a particularly energetic person. emphasis? found.
Q Particularly with reference to foreign laborers? country we had exhausted all possibilities. in the occupied territories and tell them that they should support Sauckel's task in detail?
A That happened very much later. To begin with, the employment of the general plenipotentiary for employment of labor took place and that was announced. It was announced to all authorities and departments concerned. I don't think any particular request was added to that by me. But, at the beginning of 1944, a conference took place at the Fuehrer's office dealing with the program of labor employment for the year of 1944. At the end of that conference, during which Sauckel had been given such figures, I had the task to write to all departments concerned and tell them that they should support Sauckel's task, the task he had just been given; that they should support it with all the strength at their disposal.
Q You are talking about a meeting at the beginning of January, 1944.
An extensive record about that is available which you have prepared. According to this record, Sauckel has said during that meeting that he would find it difficult to fulfil the demands or probably wouldn't be able to fulfil them at all. That's with reference to foreign workers. What was the reason he stated for that? executive powers necessary for the carrying out of that task were lacking in the various sectors. He said that if he were to fulfil his task, then he would most of all not be depending on an executive party abroad as, for instance, was the case in connection with France; but that there would have to be a German executive power which would support his actions.
Q Didn't he talk about the fact that the fulfilment of the demand was impossible because of partisans and bandits?
A He pointed out these difficulties repeatedly. He referred to partisans and bandits and it was, of course, regarded as a matter of course, that any recruitment for labor could be carried out by him in such territories where partisan battles were still going on. executive powers in that connection?
A Yes, that's correct. resistance movements? he would have a free hand and be free to work. to me how that is to be understood. Here is says:
"The Reich leader of the SS explained that the executive forces at his disposal all were extremely small, but that he would try to increase them extensively so as to ascertain success for Sauckel's actions."
How is that to be understood?
were active, and Sauckel thought that without a cleaning up of these territories he wouldn't be able to become active. Himmler, who was present, agreed that he would do his best, but he had certain objections, whether the existing police battalions or other police forces would be at his disposal for the purpose. of the authorities and the security in the territories, but that this is not a transfer of the powers to the SS? The German executive body which was demanded by Sauckel meant in every case that the executive authority which was in position already should be used, as in France, for instance, where there were field commanders who had to look after that, and in Russia it had to be looked after by the police battalions who had to take care of Partisans.
Q Now, I have a question as to the political leadership staff. A document has been presented here whichhas been submitted with a number, D-728. It bears the signature of Gauleiter Sprenger. It hasn't a date on it, but it appears that it came out in the spring or the beginning of 1945. In this letter there is mention of a new Reich Health Law, and it is supposed to contain instructions regarding pneumonia victims and people suffering from heart diseases, who are supposed to be removed. It says that this law is to be kept a secret, and on the strength of that law these families would no longer be allowed to remain amongst the public and were not allowed to produce any heirs. Did you know anything about that law?
A I don't understand the words. Did you say insane or what? suffering from heart diseases.
Q Ought it to have been known to you? Interior. Health matters were dealt with by him. It never reached me, though.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions. BY DR. STEINBAUER (Counsel for Defendant Seyss-Inquart): published -- on the 13th of March, 1938, which has the heading, "Law for the Reunion of Austria with the German Reich." Seyss-Inquart and his Government were surprised by this law, and I am now asking you whether you know anything detailed regarding the problem how it was possible on the 13th of March, 1938, that this law could appear. radio listener, through the radio. And since I assumed that I might be needed I went to Vienna and at that point the law had already been completed. It had been signed and it had been published. I did not participate in the drafting, but the Minister of the Interior and Secretary of State, Stuckhardt, very probably drafted that law. I myself did not in any way cooperate in its creation. I didn't even know the action as such was to take place. was produced so suddenly, so horridly?
Q Thank you. At the same time Dr. Seyss-Inquart was promoted SS Obergruppenfuehrer, not as the Prosecution has stated, SS General, and apart from that the Fuehrer promised him that within one year he would be made a member of the Reich Government. It is a fact that in 1939 he actually became Minister without Portfolio. Did Seyss-Inquart in his capacity as an SS Obergruppenfuehrer and as Minister without Portfolio carry out any functions of any kind?
AAs far as I know, Seyss-Inquart didn't become Obergruppenfuehrer but Gruppenfuehrer. That was an honorary rank which was given him. He had no powers to issue orders and he never served in the SS, as far as I know. He merely wore the uniform, and later on he was promoted Obergruppenfuehrer. In other words, this was entirely a question of uniform; it was an honorary rank.
Q Thank you. One year later Seyss-Inquart was appointed Reich Commissioner for the Netherlands and in the Law Gazette for the Netherlands this Appointment was published together with a Reich Law Gazette.
Do you know whether apart from those published decrees from Hitler which made him Reich Town Governor when he wasn't given a task within the framework of the four-year plan? Netherlands Seyss-Inquart suffered under the same limitations which I described yesterday in connection with Frank and Rosenberg. In other words, there was a certain limitaton that said that the Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan could exercise his powers which he had everywhere else, that is to say, his position was limited from the wording.
Q What was the position of the German Police in the Netherlands? Was the German Police under the direct orders of the Defendant Seyss-Inquart or was it under the Reich Leader SS Himmler? yesterday for the Government General. The higher SS and Police leader was at the disposal of the Reich Commissioner but his actual functions came from Himmler.
Q Thank you. Do you, Witness, recollect that you at the beginning of 1944 told the Defendant, who was then Reich Commissioner for the Netherlands, of an order from the Fuehrer ordering him to supply from the Netherlands 250,000 workers? And can you remember that Seyss-Inquart refused? being asked questions in connection with Sauckel. It is a circular letter which asked everybody to support Sauckel's actions and individual departments were given demands regarding the figures of the workers they were to supply. Whether that was 250,000 workers, in connection with Seyss-Inquart's case, that I cannot remember; I don't know. But I do know that Seyss-Inquart expressed himself against the raising of that figure of 250,000 and had considerable qualms. He asked me to take that to the Fuehrer.
DR. STEINBAUER: Thank you. I have no further questions.
BY DR. LATERNSER (Counsel for General Staff and OKW): Armed Forces? Was there any military pressure employed in that connection?
A I myself didn't participate immediately in the seizure of power. I can't tell you, therefore, with absolute certainty. At any rate, nothing is known to me that the Reichswehr -- the Armed Forces -- at that time had any influence upon the seizure of power. I assume that if it had been the case one would have heard about it. Chancellor took place, which was unified in Hitler's person. Could military leaders have refused to swear an oath of allegiance to Hitler? Would this be a constitutional crime? the constitution and this made the Fuehrer the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, and any possibility to resist -- that would have been impossible; it would have been a revolt; it would have been mutiny. the starting of an aggressive war? exericse any influence upon his political decisions. Did you know of any statement made by Hitler by which he deprived Generals of the right to participate in political judgments? and individual Generals. He has praised them from the military point of view. As far as politics were concerned, he was always of the opinion that they knew nothing about politics and that one should keep them away from a position where political matters had to be decided.
Q It is also known that Hitler wouldn't suffer anybody to contradict him. Wasn't the deeper reason for Blomberg's dismissal and the dismissal of Fritsch and Beck the fact that they repeatedly contradicted him?