by airplane yesterday of which there is only one original copy and which therefore we have not been able to get translated, so I have arranged, if it is satisfactory to the Tribunal, for the interpreter to read the excerpts from that original document, which was taken from Schirach's personal files in Vienna, and then submit the original document to the Court and have it processed just as quickly as we are able to do so. Or perhaps the Tribunal would like to see the document first. It is an original document.
THE PRESIDENT: You will read it so that it will go through into German?
COLONEL AMEN: Yes, Your Lordship,
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
COLONEL AMEN: This is Document No. 3876-PS. It is a report issued by Heydrich to all the higher SS and police leaders and Reich defense commissioners on the activities of the Einsatz groups in the USSR during the month of January, 1942, and on the distribution list appears the name of this Defendant. Will you read it? It will be US 808.
THE INTERPRETER: On the right-hand side the document bears the initials in ink SDH, and then several symbols; VR, VH, 403L-519-4BG. And below that 13AOG. At the left top: at Vienna, upper and lower Danube, and in the armed forces district No.17.
The document bears the heading "Secret".
THE PRESIDENT: Is that right--14th of October, 1941?
THE INTERPRETER: Yes, 14 October 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: The previous date that was given was January 1942. That is the explanation of that?
COLONEL AMEN: It covers the month--I think there are two different documents. You are giving the date on one. There is a different date on the other. Is that not correct?
THE INTERPRETER: That is correct.
COLONEL AMEN: Well, give us the date on the other document so the record win be clear.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Amen, we shall be able to understand when we see the document.
COLONEL AMEN: Yes, Your Lordship.
THE INTERPRETER: The date of the second document is April 23, 1942.
COLONEL AMEN: Go ahead.
THE INTERPRETER: "Subject: Report on experience regarding rights in the East. -- Reference:" and then come a number of reference numbers and initials.
"The above decree of the Fuehrer SS and Chief of the German Police in the Minister of the Interior, together with one copy of the experience reports of the Army Group Commander North (?), and the SS police Division, is herewith handed to you for your information and exploitation." The order is signed "Nigel."
COLONEL AMEN: Willyou just go on to the distribution list and read if you find it on the list, this defendant'sname.
THE INTERPRETER: The name of the defendant is not on the distributor. I am coming to the next document. It is not contained in this document and I am now reading the second document.
"Berlin, 27 February 1942. The Chief of the Security police and the SD, 4-A-1," and then several different file references. "Secret Reich Matter. Subject: Activity and situation report No. 9 of Special Action Groups of the Security Police and the SD in the USSR. Attached hereto--
COLONEL AMEN: Just a minute. He is reading thewrong document, your Lordship. We willhave it straight in a minute.
THE INTERPRETER: I am told we are reading the right document. It is the right document, I continue.
"Herewith attached, I submit to you the Reich activity report of the situation regarding activities of Special Action Groups of theSecurity Police and of the SD in the USSR. Situation reports in the future will be sent to you currently. (Signed) Heydrich."
Then there is a stamps "The Commissar for the Reich Defense for the Armed Forces, District 17, received 5 April 1942," and then follows the distributor and the 13th name on it states "To the Higher SS and Police Leader, SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Kaltenbrunner."
COLONEL AMEN: No, if you will skip to "C" on that document --
THE INTERPRETER: I now read from page 9 of the document, an extract from the heading "C-"."The attitude of the Jews is still clearly hostile to the Germans and criminal.
We are aiming at cleansing the Eastern countries completely of Jews, Shootings are carried out everywhere in such a manner that they are hardly noticeable to the public. The population, and even the remaining Jews, are frequently becoming convinced that the Jews are merely being resettled. Estonia has already been cleared of Jews. In Lithuania, the number of Jews in Riga, of which there were 29,500, has now been reduced to 2,500. In Dueneberg there are still 962 Jews living, who are urgently needed for labor purposes."
I am now skipping several paragraphs and I continue:
"In Lithuania there are now at Kauen still 15,00, in Schaulen 400,500, and in Wilna another 15,000 Jews who are also required for the purpose of labor. In White Lithuania the cleansing is continuing. The number of Jews in the part which has been handed over to the civilian administration amounts to 139,000. 33,210 Jews have, in the meantime, been dealt with by the Special Action Group of the Security police and the SD and were shot." ment. This is dated "Berlin, 23 April 1942", and the signature or the initial is illegible. It has the heading of the"Chief of the Security Police and of the SD, IV-A-1, and several file references. It is a secret Reich matter. This document, which is signed by Heydrich and which was received on the 20th of April, 1942, states on the distributor, under No. 14, "To the Higher SS and Police Leader, SS Gruppenfuehrer, Dr. Kaltenbrunner -- Vienna."
I now read from page 11 of the report and I read an extract headed "'C-Jews The manner and system, the method used in connection with the cleansing of the Jewish problem was in the territories, in the report, very different. Since the Eastern Territory is mostly free of Jews and since the few remaining Jews, who are urgently required for labor purposes, have been put into a ghetto, it was for the task of the Security Police and the SD in this connection to round up these Jews who were concealing themselves in the country districts, a Repeatedly, Jews were apprehended who had left the ghetto without permission or who weren't wearing the Jewish Star. In Riga, there were throe Jews who had been sent to the ghetto from the Reich, who had escaped. They were apprehended and they were publicly hanged in the ghetto. During large-scale anti-Jewish actions, in Minsk 3,412 Jews, in Wilecka 312, and in Barabowitschi 2,007 Jews were shot."
I now skip three paragraphs and continue:
"In the remaining territories of the Eastern Front, it was the task of the Security Police and the SD, apart from action against individual political or criminally prominent Jews, to generally clean up larger dwellings, larger places and towns. In Rakow alone 15,000 and in Artenowsk 1,224 Jews were shot, so that these places are now free of Jews. In the Crimea 1,000 Jews and Gypsies were executed." BY COLONEL AMEN: you knew nothing about the operations of these Einsatzgruppen?
Q Until after you took over as Chief of the RSHA? Higher SS and Police Leader -
THE PRESIDENT: Answer the question and then you can look at the document afterwards. Do you still say that you knew nothing about these Einsatzgruppen?
THE WITNESS: I have no knowledge of the contents of this document. I want to point out that the Inspector of the Order Police is the department which, on the 22nd of October 1941, dispatched this letter -- Reports on experiences in the battle at the Eastern Front and the use of the Security Police and SD, which had been compiled during that period, firstly by order of Himmler or Heydrich and not due to my orders.
This document can in no way prove just what my attitude was to that whole question. If it says on the distributor that the General Higher SS and Police Leader and all service departments were included in it, to whom, those reports were sent, then I do not regard that as proof that those departments -- that is to say, all men who were working in these departments, must necessarily have had knowledge of this report. You can't assume that reports referring to territories, in which the official in question had no jurisdiction whatsoever or no influence, were actually taken cognizance of; that such crimes were committed in the East, that cannot today be doubted at all but what you have to investigage is whether intellectually and legislatively and from the point of view of jurisdiction, I have to stop them, and all that I must definitely deny. BY COLONEL AMEN: copy of which went to you every single month; isn't that a fact? Yes or no?
A I don't know. I don't know how often they did come. This is the first time that I see that report here today. The fact that such reports were made regarding all battle zones cither by the Security Police or by the Order Police or by the Armed Forces, that they were distributed all over the Reich, that of course cannot be denied.
Q That is enough for me.
on your behalf at this trial? at least he has not informed me. Mayor in Oranienburn near Berlin and received a reply to that letter to be used on your behalf?
A No. Please ask him and he will tell you he has not informed me of that.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Amen, are you entitled to go into professional matters between the defendant and his counsel?
COLONEL AMEN: I believe in this instance, your Lordship, because the letter was sent to us deliberately by the recipient of the letter with the expectation that it would be used by us. This is no confidential communication. It was a letter -
THE PRESIDENT: Will you let the Tribunal see the letter?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Mr. President, this is the first time that I hear of this matter. If the document was supposed to have been addressed to me would it be possible for me to have a look at it before it becomes a subject of this trial?
COLONEL AMEN: Sure.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly, let him look at it first.
COLONEL AMEN: If your Lordship please -
DR. KAUFFMANN: May I clarify it, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we had better hear from Colonel Amen first because he is wanting to introduce the document.
Yes, Dr. Kauffmann, what do you want to say now?
DR. KAUFFMANN: No doubt the Tribunal will havenoticed -
THE PRESIDENT: We have not seen the document.
DR. KAUFFMANN: I have seen the document, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I say we have not seen it yet. We have allowed you to see it first in order that you may make any objection to it that you want to make before we see it and then we will look, at it.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, I see.
Mr. President, I am of the opinion that this is an unfair intervention and and infringement of the rights and duties of the German Defense. The whole world may read this document. It is an inquiry made to the mayor's office at Oranienburg.
Oranienburg was a large concentration camp. Since, in particular after consulting with my colleagues, I had the task of clarifying the question of how much the German people knew, for instance. I had written to the Mayor's office and asked questions which everybody may read and I have asked that these questions be answered and I had intended that, if possible, the answers would be submitted to the Tribunal. The same questions have been sent out to other towns and I have already submitted these documents for translation and shall submit them to the Tribunal later. and the reply given to that defense counsel should be submitted here by the Prosecution and disclosed.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute, Dr. Kauffmann. What the document that Colonel Amen was offering in evidence was not your letter to the Mayer of Oranienburg nor his answer to you.
COLONEL AMEN: Yes, it was.
THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon, I thought you said it was a letter that was sent to the Prosecution.
COLONEL AMEN: I said a copy was sent to the Prosecution, as I understand it, not only by the person who received it, there was no covering letter, but also turned over to the British Prosecution in a letter dated 2 April, 1946 from Major Wurmser.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I understand now. I do not think you said before it is a copy. What I understood was it might have been sent to you by mistake. If it was a copy of a letter which was sent to Dr. Kauffman then the position is clear as to what it was.
COLONEL AMEN: That in my understanding of it, sir, and it is a copy of his letter but I know of no priviledge whatsoever or of any definition -THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean by "a copy of his letters"? a copy of the letter sent to Dr. Kauffmann?
COLONEL AMEN : Sent by Dr. Kauffmann to the Mayor of Oranienburg and a copy of the reply made by the Mayor to Dr. Kauffmann, and I think you will see -
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see.
COLONEL AMEN: I think you will see if Your Lordship reads the communication how it is it came directly to our attention.
DR. KAUFFMANN: May I say one more thing, only two or three sentences, please? of the rights of defense to look into documents of the Prosecution and the thought would never have struck us that documents of the Defense, which were in favor of the Prosecution should be submitted to the Tribunal. answer to that letter and how is it possible that the Prosecution should interfere in such personal connection? I do not think it is fair.
COLONEL AMEN: If Your Lordship Pleases, I think I can clear the whole thing up. --- This is a letter dated 2 April, 1946 from Major Wurmser to the British Prosecution and it reads:
"Attached please find the original correspondence regarding Oranienburg. In accordance with your request I have ascertained that this correspondence was received in the following way.
"It came addressed to the Prosecution and was delivered to the General Secretary. The original was apparently sent directly to Dr. Kauffmann and the sender, the Mayor of Oranienburg, a Mr. Klausmann, dispatched a carbon copy to the Prosecution at the same time, which not only consisted of his answer but also of the letter which was sent to him by Dr. Kauffmann."
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think we understand the circumstances now.
COLONEL AMEN: So I think it was sent to the Prosecution for the very purpose that I am now endeavouring to utilize it.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Amen, apart altogether from the question of privilege between counsel and his client, how do you say that this document which is a latter apparently from a private individual addressed to Dr. Kauffmann a copy of which is sent to you is evidence at all?
COLONEL AMEN: Because your Lordship, there is included in the defendant's document book a letter which is on precisely this same point. In other words, this defendant has raised this point in his own defense.
THE PRESIDENT: That is not quite the point. This letter to Dr. Kauffmann, of which you have a copy, is not as I understand a sworn statement.
COLONEL AMEN: It is not sworn, no sir.
THE PRESIDENT: How does it become evidence then? The witness is not here.
COLONEL AMEN: It has the same probative value that many letters introduced here in evidence have. In fact, I think it has considerably more than many of them because it is a letter from an official, from the mayor, who has conducted an inquiry and has ascertained what I consider to be one of the most important matters of the case, namely whether -
THE PRESIDENT: No, I do not want to hear at the moment what is in the letter.
COLONEL AMEN: I cannot think of a thing that was more pertinent than this letter or more important to be brought out at this trial, particularly when it -- well, you do not want me to go into that, particularly when it is something which the defendant has sought to interpose as his own defense and which now turns out -
THE PRESIDENT: But he has not sought to introduce it for his own defense.
COLONEL AMEN: I say he has sought to introduce that issue with the letter in his document book so even if it were not otherwise perhaps relevant it surely becomes so when the defendant has raised that precise issue in his own document book. But even aside from that it seems to me that it is one of the most important issues in this case.
wish me to but I can hardly think of anything more pertinent than the matter set forth there in the form of an official communication.
THE PRESIDENT: The only question I was asking you was how the particular document which is an unsworn document came to be competent evidence. Has it been seen by the witness who is under crossexamination?
COLONEL AMEN: Well, as an official communication, sir, to his counsel, in the course of discharge of his official duties as a mayor. It is a part of his job.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Kauffmann.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Mr. President, I do not want to talk about procedure. I do not want to go at great length into the question of procedure, which has been touched upon, but I wish to emphasi ze that these two documents have nothing to do with the case of Kaltenbrunner as such. As I have just said, everyone can look at the document but, because this document has nothing to do with Kaltenbrunner, it has right from the very beginning no value as evidence.
COLONEL AMEN: It has even further probative value, Your Lordship, in that if the matters referred to in this letter were known, as described in the letter, to the people in Oranienburg, surely the person who occupies the position as Chief of the RSHA in Germany must certainly have the knowledge which the smallest local civilian appears to have.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
(A recess was taken.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal rules that the document is inadmissible.
COLONEL AMEN: That was to have been my last document, Your Lordship, so that concludes the cross-examination, except for one point. There is a witness named Hoess, who is called on behalf of the defendant, and through whom I would like to introduce two exhibits. If he is not to be called, however, then I would like to introduce those exhibits through the defendant. Therefore, I am wondering whether we could obtain a definite statement as to whether or not the witness Hoess is actually to be called by the defense.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann, are you proposing to call Hoess?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You are Very well.
DR. KAUFFMANN: I have no further questions to put to the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid I did not hear what you said#
DR. KAUFFMANN: I have no further questions to put to the defendant.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Mr. President, we have a few questions to put to the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, we understood the other day that the counsel for the prosecution had agreed that there should only be one cross-examination of the defendant Kaltenbrunner.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President. We only wish to beg the Tribunal to allow us to put a few additional questions to the defendant. They will not take very long, and they are quite indispensable.
THE PRESIDENT: In the opinion of the Tribunal, you know, counsel ought to settle before-hand what questions are indispensable and then have then put by the counsel who cross-examines. That is the whole object of the scheme. that all the prosecutors had agreed that so far as this defendant was concerned he should only be cross-examined by one?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that was the position. I understand that the Soviet Delegation have some special points, and they were going to ask, as a matter of grace of the Tribunal, whether they could put them.
That is what my Soviet colleagues have informed me.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost?
M. DUBOST: My explanation will be very brief, Mr. President. In principle, the prosecution entrusts one man to ask all these questions. However, it is impossible for the entire investigation and examination to be carried out by one member of the prosecution only, because we do represent four different nations which have, not varied interests, but very distinct ones. The only person whocan ask the question is the one who can represent the interest of the nation. I think, therefore, that the Tribunal should allow us to ask these questions when we wish to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, you aren't applying now, are you, for leave to have a third cross-examination, but you are just speaking on general principles?
M. DUBOST: Mr. President, it is a question of principle. The prosecution has limited itself in order to economize on time, but it requests the Tribunal for authorization to intercede, when it is necessary to do so, in order to represent the interests of a country. interrogation of my colleague of the United States; I do not wish to retard the proceedings. However, I think that the Tribunal could tell us that, in principle, we may remain free to ask questions which concern our countries, more expecially, when we alone are competent to represent the interests of our countries and we cannot transfer this confidence to one of our colleagues.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, could you inform the Tribunal as to what points you wish to cross-examine upon?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President. Yesterday, when the defendant was replying to questions of Colonel Amen, he was denying his participation in the extermination of the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto. He stated then that the Police Fuehrer of occupied Poland, Krueger, was directly subordinated to Himmler and had absolutely nothing to do with Kaltenbrunner.
which have been entrusted to me by the Polish Delegation-
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that point. Are there other points?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Finally, the second point refers to one document which was submitted previously by the Soviet Delegation, and which was not taken up by the first prosecutor, but which is of special interest to us. defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: You are aware that we are going to adjourn at half past twelve for the purpose of dealing with the documents of the Defendant Rosenberg, but you may certainly cross-examine upon these points if you will do it as shortly as you can.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: I believe, Mr. President, that we will be able to manage it. BY COLONEL SMIRNOV: document which disclosed your participation in the extermination of the Warsaw Ghetto. Rebutting this document, you stated in detail that the head of the police in occupied territories were directly subordinated to Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler and had nothing to do with you. Do you confirm this statement?
A Yes. That requires supplementation. I said yesterday that the higher SS and police leader in the Government General was under Himmler and that in turn the SS and Police leaders were under Himmler. As far as smaller districts were concerned, the higher SS and police leaders were the commanders in the sectors or the security police and Waffen SS. The same applies to the SS and police leader in smaller districts.
Q Maybe you remember your second statement. Did I rightly understand you when you said that you were opposed to the so-called extreme tendencies of Krueger as regards the Polish Jews, and you even strove to hold him back? having Krueger relieved and transferred elsewhere from the Government General.
Q I would like to show the Defendant Frank's diary and will ask him to see page 13, where Krueger speaks, and then page 16. I will now read three paragraphs from this page, page 16. Read and tell us if that is rightly translated:
"There is no doubt", says Krueger, "that the extermination of the Jews influenced the pacification."
A That passage has not yet been put before me here. I am on page 13 of the document. "there is no doubt." I begin again:
"There is no doubt that the extermination of the Jews influenced pacification measures. The police were obliged to carry out the most difficult and most disagreeable tasks, but this was carried out under order of the Fuehrer in the interest of the defense of Europe. We are compelled to exterminate the Jews also in war industries."
"We are compelled to exterminate the Jews also in war industrial plants and from the sectors working for the war industry, if their utilization was not provoked exclusively by extraordinary arguments of military character. The Reichsfuehrer wishes too that even these Jews should also be exterminated. In that respect Zeireis (?) had talked with General Schindler, and we believe that this wish of the Reichsfuehrer cannot be carried out in full.
Among the Jewish workers there are specialists --mechanics and other qualified worker--who cannot be replaced by Poles."
I draw your attention to the next sentence:
"He therefore requests of SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Kaltenbrunner to report this to the Reichsfuehrer and to beg him not to insist on the extermination of these Jewish workers and to leave in the war industrial plants only those Jewish workers who are in good health--so-called "Maccabaeers." We have also came to the same conclusion while exterminating the Warsaw Ghetto. The fulfilling of this task entailed great difficulties."
I skip another sentence and read further:
"There is certain information that the Jews defended themselves to the last, weapons in hand, against the SS and police units." a greater part of the Polish Jews ware exterminated and only a few good specialists remained the extermination would have been harmful to the war industries and that Krueger wrote to you, SSpolice chief, to beg Himmler to let them live? Does this not show that Krueger considered you as his chief and anted through you
A No, Mr. Prosecutor. This document proves something quite different. He himself says that the clearing of the Ghetto at Warsaw had happened before that particular date, and that further he says that he requests that I should go to Himmler to intervene.
What I said there is not contained in the document. On that occasion I stated to Himmler for the first time, "Now I know what is going on." Just how I talked against that is not contained in your document. But I must be given the opportunity to state and prove here that I intervened against these actions and when you cross examine Frank and his witnesses you will come to the conclusion that I am right. I have not finished talking. you will most certainly find out exactly how at that opportunity I made my first and only visit to the Government General and that I made my experiences the subject of a conference and report to Himmler.
You can't accuse me here that on one side I am supposed to have had knowledge of all these things and on the other hand not give me the possibility to say how I reacted. In the last two years of the war I came into a position where I could begin to learn about the situation in the Reich and later on the situation in the Government General. But you aren't giving me a possibility to say, "How did this man react to what he learned, that man who, unfortunately, at the end of the war was a superior official."
Q Why did Kreuger act through you? had gone there. It merely mentions that I had been there as a police official It doesn't state that. The only thing he knows is, of course, that I as the chief of the intelligence service was there and that I had to report to Himmler in that capacity, and so he is asking me that I should report on this matter too. Krueger was secretary of state for the security system in the Government General. He was secretary of state there, and as secretary of state he was under the Government General.
THE PRESIDENT: You are going too fast and you are making far too much of a speech.
General, he was immediately subordinate to Himmler. That must be known.
Q I beg you to answer briefly. Did Krueger ask you to report to Himmler on this subject? That is the only thing I am asking you. administrative officials and everybody talked to everyone else, who was close to the Fuehrer or Himmler, and asked him to give an explanation.
Q Tell me yes or no. Did he ask you to speak to Himmler or not? Then I will put another question to you.
THE PRESIDENT: What did you say to the last question? Wasn't the question "Did you go there?" Colonel Smirnov?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: I had another question to put, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: I am asking you what your last question was
COLONEL SMIRNOV: I was asking the defendant to answer this question and to refrain from making speeches.
THE PRESIDENT: What was your last question?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: This was the last question: Did Krueger ask Kaltenbrunner to report to Himmler on this subject; and the second question Do you want me to tell you the second question?
THE PRESIDENT: I wanted him to answer your question. Will you tell him you want him to answer. Don't ask him two questions; ask him one question. Can't you hear what I said?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Ask him one question and see whether you can try and get him to answer it. BY COLONEL SMIRNOV:
Q Did Krueger ask you to report this to Himmler, or don't you remember this?
A It may be that he did ask me but not as a superior. You must put yourself in that situation and you must realize what number of people there were; that must also become apparent from the diary. I didn't go there as the Chief of the Security Police or as Krueger's superior but Krueger, like masses of other men, dozens of other men, made a speech regarding the food situation.
Q I would like you to refrain from further argument. You answered my question and that is enough.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, the defendant Kaltenbrunner hashad a quotation from Frank's diary read to him. That diary consists of 42 volumes and I should like to suggest that the prosecutor mention the place and the volume and the date of the entry, so that one can establish in what connection the statement appears.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: It is an original copy of Frank's diary and, therefore, I think there can be no doubt as to the authenticity of this document. It is a working conference for 1943, and page 16, and the document is registered as US Exhibit 600.
THE PRESIDENT: He asked you if that has a date.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: This conference was the 31st of May 1943.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what Dr. Seidl wants to know.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: I have another short question to put to the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on. BY COLONEL SMIRNOV: matters and had no other activity, did he consider the reception of one million Tumans for the buying of votes in Iran as a part of his activity?
A Tumans for the voting in Iran? That was certainly nothing I had to carry out but I admit that, of course, agents from my intelligence did work in Iran.
Q Did you beg one million Tumans from Ribbentrop? Did you ask Ribbentrop to give you one million Tumans? already submitted as USSR Exhibit 618. Ribbentrop admitted that matter regarding the one million Tumans. Does the defendant rebut this evidence of defendant Ribbentrop?