the explanations or become calm. A few weeks afterward, on the 18th of August, 1935, I used to visit to the Eastern Exhibition at Koenigsberg to mention in the speech which I had to make those very things. Hitler aboard the Scharnhorst at the beginning of May.
In this connection I didn't only talk about the question of churches or the question of the Jews or the question of wilful actions. I also talked about the Free Masons, and I quote only a few sentences from that speech, with the permissio of the Tribunal. They are very short. I am speaking about people, and I now quote
Q Just one moment. I want to tell the Tribunal that this is the Koenigsberg speech, which I have submitted to the Tribunal this morning.
A I am talking about people in this connection, and i now quote:
"People who in the dark of nights are smearing letters on windows, who brand every German who trades in a Jewish store as a traitor, who condemn every former Free Mason as a bum, and who, in the just fight against priests and ministers who talk politics from the pulpit, cannot themselves distinguish between religion and misuse of the pulpit." End of Quotation, and then another sentence. I quote:
"As before, according to the legal state of affairs and on the strength of various declarations made by the Deputy of the Fuehrer, the Reich Minister of the Interior, and the Reich Minister for public Enlightenment and Propaganda (not to mention the Ministry of Economics), Jewish businesses have been permitted to carry on their business activities."
End of quotation, and then in the last sentences I quote:
"No one in Germany is deprived of his rights. According to Point 4 of the National Socialist Party program, the Jew can neither become a citizen or a fellow German. But Point 5 provides legislation for him That means he must not be under arbitrary action, but under the law." in the future.
Q Dr. Schacht, did the regime allow you to make that speech? statements made by Gesevius with reference to the speech of von Papen, the same question was discussed, since up to then my speeches weren't subjected to being censored, something which I wouldn't have stood for.
Station. In that way Propaganda Minister Goebbels got knowledge of the speech, an d at once he issued an order prohibiting the publication of that speech in the papers. As a result, although the speech went over the broadcasting station, it did not appear in any newspaper. Since the Reichsbank, fortunately, had printing arrangements of its own, which were of course not subjects to censorship, I had the speech printed in the Reichsbank printing shop; and 250,000 copies of it were distributed to the 400 branches of the Reichsbank in the country, thus going to every corner of the Reich. In that manner it became known to the entire population
Q You were going to continue, weren't you? fact, looking for, I again and again referred to those points. I should only like to touch upon two things in this connection.
This morning I mentioned the letter written by me on the 24th of December 193* written by me to the Reich Minister of War, and in that connection I referred to these matters. I should only like to add the words, which I shall now quote. I quote: "The economic and illegal political treatment of the Jews, the antichurch activities of certain Party organizations, and the legal arbitrariness associated with the Gestapo form a detriment," and so on and so forth, "to my task On the 12th of May 1936, there is a record of the so-called "small Ministerial Council," which has been used as evidence by the Prosecution and submitted to the Tribunal.
That shows once more the same attitude. I quote from that record in which it says:
"Dr Schacht, in addition, emphasized quite openly again and again that a cultural and legal policy would have to be pursued which would leave the economic system alone." End of quotation. use my legitimate arguments in that capacity.
And now the last example of a type of which there are many more which I can't furnish today. There is a speech on the occasion of the celebration of handicraft apprentices, within the Berlin Chamber of Handicraft, which took place on the 11th of May 1937. On that occasion I said the following, and I quote:
"No community and most of all no State, can flourish which is not based on legality, order and discipline."
End of quotation.
And a second sentence, I quote:
"For that reason you must not only respect the right and the law, but you must act against injustice and lack of legal actions everywhere, wherever you me* it." End of quotation. smaller circle, but because I without any fear and on every opportunity made known these views publicly, it brought the result that a few weeks ago the chief of the RSHA Department 111, Security Service, witness Ohlendorf, upon being asked described me as an enemy of the Party, at least since 1937 or 1938. known, since he had the task of combatting any political opponents.
DR. DIX: May I point out that the statements made during the meeting of the Small Cabinet Council, the 12th of May 1936, are contained in my document book, "Schacht," Exhibit Number 20; page 47 of the English Text, page 51 of the German text.
As far as Schacht's speech before the Industrial and Commercial Chamber is concerned -- Handicraft Chamber, rather -
THE WITNESS: You should have said the Chamber of Handicraft.
DR. DIX: --that is something I shall refer to later when I file the proper document, and I now continue.
BY DR. DIX: should merely like to ask you: Did you participate in any other Party functions? the Party.
Q The Indictment contains, literally, the following sentence. You are being accused that you had used your personal influence and your close connections to the Fuehrer for the purpose which we all know. Did you, after you had made all your experiences, did you have any influence upon the Fuehrer?
A I myself, as far as any influence on the Fuehrer's actions and decisions are concerned, can say that, unfortunately, I have never had any such influence. I have only had any such influence in so far as he consulted me in my special capacity as financial and economic expert, and he didn't wish to disturb me. Apart from that, the lack of influence on the part of all members of Hitler's entourage has been mentioned by various witness. So much has been said about it that I think I need not trouble the Tribunal with any further statements on that subject. of who had influence, the question of the influence of the Reich Cabinet, to the question regarding the meetings of the Reich Cabinet, and so on and so forth, Various witnesses have made statements on that subject, but have you get anything new to add?
A I can only and, speakeng generally, that the Cabinet in the Reich didn't have the least influence on Hitler, and that since November 1937 -- this has been stated repeatedly in this Court room -- there were no meeting and no consultations of the Cabinet.
The Reich Cabinet was a group not in any way inter-connected. It was politically impotent and its ministers were of course perfectly capable in that sphere.
DR. DIX: I now come to the number of the speech before that chamber of handicraft workers. It is Exhibit No. 30, page 69 in the English text and page 82 of the German text. BY DR. DIX:
Q Mr. Schacht, what was the situation regarding rearmament? Whose will was decisive regarding the degree of rearmament? that Hitler's will only was the decisive factor. credit giver and money lender? I had done nothing at all which I would not assume responsibility for. influence regarding Hitler? In this connection, I remind you of a conversation you had with Ambassador Bullitt in 1937. some other connection before and the memorandum of Ambassador Bullitt is available as an exhibit which was presented to the Tribunal by the prosecution. I merely refer to the sentence which refers to me and I quote: "He" -- that is to say, Schacht -- "introduced his statements with the words that he today was himself without any influence upon the man" -that is to say, Hitler. "He appeared to consider himself as finished politically and appeared to have little respect for the man." That, as I said, was in November, 1937, but if I may have permission to add this, I want to point out that in my position and my activities in the directing of public affairs in Germany, I continuously informed my friends abroad -and upon some later occasion, one or the other example which I shall quote, will prove it.
DR. DIX: I now draw your attention to Exhibit No. 22, page 44 of the English text.
BY DR. DIX: Economy. You have made statements regarding the obtaining of foreign raw materials or you have quoted corresponding passages. Couldn't there be replacements from sources in the Reich? inland products. We have learned in the meantime about a large number of new materials which we didn't know before. be replaced in that manner and could only be obtained through foreign trade channels.
Q And what was your attitude towards the question of autharchy? without undue expenditures which would have been a waste of German public property and German work, certain synthetic materials could be produced in Germany, then one should do so but that apart from that, the main tendency of foreign trade was advisable for economic reasons and was an absolute necessity and that it was an even more outstanding necessity, that for reasons of international cultural exchanges and the living together amongst the nations and isolation of the nations was always considered as a considerable misfortune by me just as I have always regarded commerce as one of the means of bringing about an international understanding.
Q Who was the exponent of the thought of autharchy? Four Year Plan was always originating from Hitler and after the task of heading the Four Year Plan had been given to Goering, Goering, too, of course, represented that line of thought.
Q Did you express your views before Goering and Hitler? every opportunity.
Q One question as an "aside". You remember that Goering explained in this courtroom, or what Goering stated in this courtroom --- I remind you of the time when Goering shouted in the courtroom "I should like to know where the 'No men' are;" and I want to ask you whether you claim to have the honorable title of the "No man" opposed to "Yes man," and you probably remember in that connection whatever you said to Goering in November 1942.
things corresponding to my inner-conviction, I did say "no." Continuous misdeeds committed by the Party were not suffered in silence by me. I turned against them on every occasion both personally, officially and publicly. I said "no" to all those things. I blocked credits. I opposed the rearmament. I talked against the war and I took steps to prevent the war. I would not know to whom else that title of the "No man" could be allotted if it isn't I.
Q Didn't you swear an oath of allegiance to Hitler?
A I did not swear an oath of allegiance to a certain Mr. Adolf Hitler. I swore allegiance to Adolf Hitler as the head of the State, the head of the German nation, just as I had not sworn allegiance to the Kaiser or to President Ebert or to President Hindenburg; except in that capacity of the head of the state, I did not swear an oath of allegiance to Adolf Hitler. The oath of allegiance which I did swear to, to the head of the German state, does not apply to the person of the head of the state; it applied to what he represents, the German nation. Perhaps I might add one thing in this connection. I consider that you cannot give an oath of allegiance to one who commits perjury and Hitler has turned out to be a perjurer in hundreds of cases. Four Year Plan and its origin, and its preparation, and so on and so forth, and I would like you to tell us what were the consequences you drew from the prophecies which existed in this connection. Please, will you briefly tell us whether you have anything to add to Goering's statements or do you divert in your memory?
A I gather from Goering's statements that he has described conditions perfectly correctly and I myself have nothing at all to add unless you have anything special in mind.
impression you gathered, that you were an obstacle in the way of a speedy and complete rearmament. Did he recognize your economic arguments? Was he satisfied with your policy or not? introduced, I could not recognize which inner attitude Hitler had as far as I was concerned, as far as these economic political questions were concerned. I want to say that his general disgust against me existed -- this was in a speech at Koenigsberg in August 1935; it was an established fact. His attitude regarding my economic political activities was something which in 1936, I could not tell for certain, because I had not in any way participated in the preparation of the Four Year Plan but had received it as a surprise during the Party meeting and because we, quite unexpectedly, found that Hermann Goering was put at the head of the Four Year Plan and not the Minister of the Economy, something which I also learned during the Party meeting in September 1936, and because of those facts which I have just mentioned, it became clear to me that Hitler, as far as economic policy was concerned, did not have the amount of confidence in me which he thought necessary. Afterwards, here in this prison, my fellow defendant Speer showed me a memorandum which defendant Speer received from Hitler on the special occasion of his being appointed as Minister of Economy and which, curiously enough, did deal with the Four Year Plan and my activities in great detail, and which was dated August 1936. In August 1936, Hitler therefore with his own hand dictated this memorandum which now, during my imprisonment, fellow defendant Speer showed to me in prison, and I presume that I may have permission to read a few brief quotations from it.
DR. DIX: I just want to give an explanation to the Tribunal. This memorandum was kindly placed at our disposal through the agency of the Prosecution. We received it from the camp commandant. We then handed it in for translation so that we could submit it now, but the translation has not yet been completed. I shall submit the entire memorandum under a new exhibit number when I receive it.
THE PRESIDENT: Has any application been made in respect of it?
DR. DIX: No application has been made.
THE PRESIDENT: Which memorandum? Who drew it up?
DR. DIX: It is a memorandum of Hitler's. It is Hitler's memorandum of the year of 1936, three copies of which exist, and one of them was found in the camp "Dustbin". That copy was only received here a fortnight or three weeks ago, after our document book had been discussed with the Prosecution, and I intended to submit that memorandum and its translation today and at the same time ask your permission to submit it in evidence, but unfortunately I am not in a position to do so since the translation has not yet been completed. My colleague, Professor Kraus, was even told that it has been mislaid.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, let the defendant go on, and you can submit the document in evidence and a translation afterwards.
DR. DIX: Very well. The defendant has a copy and he will quote the most important, very brief, passages.
THE WITNESS: I can quote very brief passages. Hitler says in the memorandum, amongst other things, and I quote:
"It is not the task of the State political economic institutions to wrack their brains about methods of production. This does not concern the Ministry of Economy." accusation against me.
A further quotation:
"It is furthermore essential that iron production in Germany should be increased to the extreme. The objection that we are not in a position to produce cheap raw iron from German ore, which has only 26 per cent of iron content, similar to the 25 per cent Swedish ores, is without foundation.
The objection that in this case the entire German smelting works would have to be reconstructed is also irrelevant, and most of all, this is none of the business of the Ministry of Economy." would only allow production of steel with very much higher expense in comparison to 45 per cent ore, and I had further explained that in order to use 26 per cent ore, one would have to have completely different plants that one would use for the use of 45 per cent ore. Hitler states that this none of the business of the Ministry of Economy, and that, of course, means Mr. Schacht.
There is one last, very brief quotation. I quote:
"I want to emphasize in this connection that I consider these tasks the only economic mobilization which exists, and that I do not consider the curtailing of the armament industry as any such possibility." BY DR. DIX:
Q. We have now reached the stage of tension and controversy between you and Goering, the contention between you and Hitler regarding your conduct of business as Minister of Economy. What was the state of affairs regarding your views at the time, and regarding the intention of resigning as Minister? What was the possibility of your resignation?
Please don't repeat in this connection anything that Lammers and other witnesses have already told you regarding the impossibility of resigning. Please talk only about your own special case and what your yourself did.
A. First of all, I tried to continue my own exonomic policy, although Goering had been given the task of running the Four-Year Flan and did, of course, as months went by, take over as many economic-political tasks as possible. But at the first opportunity when Goering infringed on my rights as Minister of Economy, I tried to force my release from the Ministry of Economy. That was in the beginning of August 1937.
I gave Hitler very brief reasons for my action by saying, "If I have to assume responsibility for economic policy, then I must have command. If, on the other hand, I do not have command, then I do not wish to have to assume responsibility." measures, lasted approximately two and a half months, until eventually Hitler had to decide, in order to prevent an increase in the conflict and prevent it from becoming public, that he would have to grant me the right to resign.
Q When you say "drastic measures", do you mean the so-called sit-down strike?
DR. DIX: May I, in that connection, submit to the Tribunal Exhibit No. 40 of my document book, which is an affidavit from another officer of Dr. Schacht's in the Reichministry of Economy, Dr. Asmis. In the English edition it is page 180, and I shall only quote a brief passage from this long affidavit. I quote:
"When this was unsuccessful" -- it means his fight -- "and when developments continued in the sphere which he considered wrong, he" -Schacht -- "in autumn 1937, long before the beginning of the war and as an upright man, drew the consequences and applied to be released from his office as Reichminister of Economy, and thus his co-responsibility.
"A normal resignation was apparently not possible for him in this connection, since for reasons of prestige the Party required the use of his name. Consequently, in autumn of 1937, he simply remained away from the rooms of the Ministry for several weeks. He started this sit-down strike, as it was called as a joke in the Ministry, and went in an official capacity only to the Reichsbank."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, is it necessary to trouble the Tribunal with all this detail? There is no dispute that he did resign and the only thing that he has got to explain is why he continued to be a Minister. The Prosecution have given their evidence about his resignation and about the conflict between him and the defendant Goering. What is the good of going into all the detail of it, as to this sit-down strike and all that sort of thing? That doesn't interest the Tribunal.
DR. DIX: He did not remain Minister after that.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought he had remained a Minister until 1943.
DR. DIX: Minister without portfolio, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't say Minister with Portfolio, I said Minister.
DR. DIX: Yes. Of course, there is a difference, but I shall come to that later. I had understood you to mean as active minister, but I shan't go into it. It is a misunderstanding. Anyway, this is the end of that, anad I was merely trying to illustrate how difficult it was to resign.
BY DR. DIX leased. Have you anything to add to the statements made by Dr. Lammers or not? I also received from fellow-defendant Speer during my imprisonment here. He was an ear witness at least, during the row between Hitler and myself, on the occasion of the decisive discussion when I did push through my resignation.
If the Tribunal will permit it, I will read it very briefly. There are two or three sentences. I quote. Speer has informed me of the following:
"I was on the terrace of the Berghof at the Obersalzberg, and I was waiting to submit my building plans. This was in the summer of 1937, and Schacht came to the Berghof. On the terrace" -
MR JUSTICE JACKSON (Interposing): Speer is present in the room. For one defendant to testify as to a conversation with another defendant is a very convenient eay of getting testimony without access to cross examination, but it seems to me that it is a highly objectionable method. testify to a conversation of this character when the defendant Speer is in the courtroom, can be sworn, can give his testimony. He sits here and is available.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the subject of the conversation?
DR. DIX: The subject of that conversation is a matter which refers to the defendant Schacht. It is a statement of Hitler's regarding Schacht; it is not a matter which applies to the defendant Speer. That is why I would consider it suitable, since it is a matter that applies to Schacht, that he should make a statement about it. I would, of course, consider it appropriate that he not read something which Speer has written to him, but that he give his own account of the event with reference to Hitler and Schacht, and that he should merely say "I have heard that from Speer." That appears to be better.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Dr. Dix, you may give that. BY DR. DIX: from Speer?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is even more objectionable to me than to have a written statement from Speer. If we are to have Speer's testimony, it at least should be Speer's and not a repetition of a conversation between the two defendants. If Speer has made a written statement, it can be submitted to us in the ordinary course. before it has been used here, and it seems to me that if this is a document signed by Speer -- which I don't think it is -- if it is, that is one thing. We can then see it and perhaps it can be used. If it is a conversation, I should prefer Speer's version.
DR. DIX: May I say something? The question of procedure does not appear to be a principal one. Certainly it can be dismissed when Speer is examined. However, I don't know whether Speer is going to be called; probably he will be. In practice it seems better if we hear it now, but of course that is up to the Tribunal to decide. It is not a question of importance.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will allow the evidence. BY DR. DIX: which was conducted in a very loud tone. At the end of the discussion Hitler came out on the terrace and he talked to the people there, amongst them Speer. He said that he had had a very serious argument with Schacht, he could not work with Schacht, and that Schacht was disturbing his financial plans.
you remained as the Chief of the Bank of the Reich; you were Reichsbank President. Were you approached by Hitler or the Minister of Finance in your capacity as President of the Reichsbank and were you asked for credit? March, 1938, beginning with that date the demands for money made to the Minister of Finance became more urgent and towards the end of that year he found himself in the embarrassing situation where he couldn't even pay salaries to his civil servants. He came to me and he asked me to grant him a special credit. According to its charter and statute the Reichsbank was entitled, and to some extent had an obligation, to advance to the Reich up to four hundred million marks per annum. The Reich Minister of Finance had those four hundred million and he was asking, over and above that, to have further credit; the Reichsbank refused to give him that. at the time, all the large banks together gave him a credit of a few hundred million marks. However, the Reichsbank did not participate in these credits. it seems that you might have been thinking of additional currency circulation. Did Hitler or anyone else ask you to get the presses going? to have a conference regarding the financing of the Jewish emigration from Germany in an orderly manner, something which I had suggested. On that occasion I had a talk with Prime Minister Chamberlain. to inform Hitler about these matters. On that occasion we did, of course, also refer to the financial requirements and needs of the Reich. As before, I refused to give credit to the Reich, and I drew his attention to the very difficult financial situation which seemed to indicate the necessity of reducing state expenditure, and, with that, expenditure on armament, or at least it should have done so.
In particular, I pointed out that at the beginning of December the first instalment of the so-called Jewish fine -- which had been collected, after the murder of von Rath in Paris, from the Jews, and which had been collected to the extent of 250 million marks at the beginning of December -- I pointed out that this first instalment had not been received entirely in cash, but that the Reich Minister of Finance had to consent to collect a considerable part of that fine in kind, as the British say, because it was impossible to make liquid the necessary cash for this payment.
Hitler replied to me: "Money can be issued in exchange for these goods. I have looked into the question of our future financial attitude in great detail and when I get back to Berlin in a few days I shall, together with you and the Minister of Finance, discuss my plans."
I recognized at once that it was Hitler's intention that the printing presses should now be utilized for his expenditure, be it with or without the nesessary backing. The danger of an inflation had now finally become imminent. And since I realized at a once that this would be the very point where, as far as I and the Reichsbank were concerned, we had to say "stop", I replied to him: "All right, in that case I shall give instructions that the Reichsbank, as far as this joint discussion with the Minister of Finance is concerned, shall submit a memorandum to you which will define the attitude of the Reichsbank to this problem." in the Directorate of the Reichsbank. We saw, to our own personal satisfaction, that this was giving us an opportunity to take a step by which we could finally turn away from that type of policy. submit to Hitler is dated January 7, and I think the prosecution have submitted it as an exhibit. the Directorate of the Reichsbank at that decisive moment so far as further state expenditure and armament expenditure were concerned, and what we had to tell Hitler, I beg to have permission to quote again, only two very brief sentences from that memorandum. It says, and I quote:
"To a decisive extent, unhindered expenditures are threatening our currency. The unlimited growth of government expenditures destroys any attempt for an orderly budget. It brings the govern ment finances to the verge of bankruptcy, despite a tremendous increase in taxes, and it undermines the currency and the banknotes."
Then there is another sentence, and I quote:
"Since, during the two foreign political actions in the East and in Sudetenland, there was an increase of public expenditures, the fact that after the termination of these two actions a reduction of expenditure is not noticeable but that everything seems to indicate that there will be a further increase of expenditure, there seems now to be an absolute duty that we should point out what the consequences on our currency system are likely to be.
"The undersigned Directors of the Reichsbank are aware and agree that while they have gladly cooperated to attain the great goal, it is now time to put a stop to it."
DR. DIX: This memorandum has been submitted by the prosecution under the number EC-369, but it is being submitted again as Exhibit 24 in my document book, and it is at page 70 of the English text and page 63 of the German text.
I shall have to put several questions to Dr. Schacht on that memorandum, but I think that perhaps there isn't time now and I shall have to do so tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: If you must, Dr. Dix, but do you think that is very important? At any rate, you had better do it tomorrow, if you are going to do it at all.
DR. DIX: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers?
DR. SIEMERS: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, can you inform us whether those extracts are the same as those extracts which were refused in the case of the defendant Ribbentrop?
DR. SIEMERS: I have made a list and I can hand that to the Tribunal in writing. Some documents are the same, some do not tally, and some are lacking. I have done that in writing.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
(A recess was taken until Thursday, 2 May 1946, at 1000 hours.)
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal would like to know exactly what your letter means, which they received from you, relating to the following documents which the letter says have been withdrawn. What I want to know is, does that mean that they are not to be translated? Let me read you the numbers: 18, 19, 48, 53, 76, 80, 81, 82, 86, and 101. Now, does your letter mean that those documents are not to be translated?
DR. SIEMERS: No, Your Lordship; that means that the British Delegation informed me yesterday morning that the objections against these documents on the part of the British Delegation no longer exist.
THE PRESIDENT: I see.
DR. SIEMERS: I had written the letter on the 30th of April, in the afternoon, after I had had a conversation with Sir David. The following morning I was informed
THE PRESIDENT: We won't bother with that. You say that their objections no longer exist. If they agree to that, well and good.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFFE: My Lord, apparently there seems to have been some misunderstanding about three of them, 80, 101, and 76. The others were not objected to.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFFE: My Lord, on 76 there seemed to be some misunderstanding between DR. Siemers and myself. I understood that he did not want to persist in the legal report on the Altmark incident, and I think Dr. Siemers thought that I wasn't persisting. However, I thought Dr. Siemers was withdrawing that.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well then, are you still objecting to that?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFFE: I am still objecting to it if it is not withdrawn, My Lord. However, the others in the list Your Lordship mentioned--that is, 18, 19, 48, 53, 82, and 86--there is no objection to.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
May-2-M-RT-4-1
DR. SIEMERS: Concerning Document 76, I agree with Sir David. 76 can be stricken.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. That's all I wanted to know.
DR. SIEMERS: No. 80 -
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then -
DR. SIEMERS (continuing) -- about which I have spoken with the British Delegation -
THE PRESIDENT: You need not tell me about it.
DR. SIEMERS: I assumed there would not be any objection. I would like to ask that it be admitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that is right. In order that the Translation Division should get on as soon as possible, the Tribunal has decided upon these documents and the only questions upon which the Tribunal has decided is that they shall be translated. The question of their admissibility will be decided after they have been translated, and I will take them in the categories of objection which are set out in Sir David's memorandum.
In Category A. the first category, No, 66 will be allowed. No. 76. as Dr. Siemers has now said, goes out. 101 to 107 will be allowed the rest are disallowed in "A" In "B" the following documents will be allowed: 39, 63, 64, 99, and 100. And, of course, 102 to 107, which are allowed under "A". The rest will not be allowed.
Category C: The following will be allowed: 38, 50, 55 and 56. The remainder are not allowed.
Category D: The following will be allowed: 29, 56, 57, 60 and 62.
Category E: The following will be allowed: 31, 32, 36, 37, 39, 41, and of course, 99 and 101 which have already been allowed. the relvance of any of the documents in that Category, but it will have them translated, with the exception of Documents 73.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES: My Lord, I wonder whether the Tribunal would allow me to mention the document numbers of the additional extracts from Der Sturmer which were put in cross-examination of Streicher. I had the numbers, ready to present at a convenient time.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit numbers?