It may be difficult to define the conditions which are essential to enable an institution to possess the character of a tribunal. It may also be difficult to state the principles which must be observed to enable proceedings before a criminal court to be called a trial. We are, however, not concerned here with borderline cases. It is evident that the Emergency Civilian Court Martial lacked almost every quality which, according to general opinion, a tribunal ought to possess, and that the trials before these 'courts' offended practically every principle which has to be respected under the law of all civilized nations. The Courts Martial can certainly not be considered as tribunals, nor their proceedings as trials and sentences. Executions carrying out the sentences of the Courts Martial did not differ in any way from executions without trial. They must be qualified as murder. It is impossible, in the provisions which regulated proceedings of these Courts Martial, to discover the least vestige of humanity. The rule, for instance, which required the sentence to be executed immediately, and the practice which did not grant the condemned men even a brief respite to prepare himself for death were a form of brutality which, like the whole institution of the Courts Martial, made at terrorizing the population."
That concludes the portions of the Czechoslovakian State Report to which we invite the Court's attention by way of judicial, notice. Before submitting it, however, we wish merely to refer, in passing, to the statute on page 11 of Document Book 2, which sets forth the statute that created the "Standgerichte" or Courts Martial within the rank itself. Statute setting up the "Standgerichte" in the protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was not included in Book 2.
DR. GRUBE (For the defendant Lautz): I would like to be excused if I have to ask the question. The translation didn't come through quite clearly. As much as I understood, the statements made dealt not with the Special Courts but with the "Standgerichte". Not "Sondergerichte" but "Standgerichte". It was those courts instituted by Heydrich. May I ask the prosecutor if this is correct?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: My remarks just now were directed to the "Standgerichte".
DR. GRUBE: I have here before me the ordinance, the decree, of 3 July 1942 which was signed, SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Daluege, and the further decree which had been issued before on the 27th of September 1941, signed by Heydrich, the chief of the SD. By this decree of Heydrich's of 27 September 1941 martial law was declared in the protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, and by Heydrich and not by the Administration of Justice, at the time the "Standgerichte" were introduced, which, therefore, had nothing to do with the Administration of Justice as such.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE BRAND): You did read from the document, comments on the Special Courts, didn't you? Is there any question about that?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Before lunch I was reading about the Special Courts, no question about that. Dr. Grube just now has injected a contention which I did not make; namely, I have never contended that the Act setting up the Courts Martial in Czechoslovakia was promulgated by the Ministry of Justice. I stated that that Act was not in Book 2. I only cited you to the page 11 of Book 2 to show you the parallel thing set up in the Reich to which the Ministry of Justice was a party.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE BRAND): The "Standgerichte" to which you refer - in the Protectorate - was not military court martial but was police court martial, is that correct?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: It was civilian court martial, carried out by both civilian and police judges.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE BRAND): But not by army?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: But not by the army.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE BRAND): Thank you.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Since this and the other United Nations reports are to be filed with the Bench, do you wish an exhibit number to be attached to it?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that for reference it would be proper.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: As Exhibit 378 --
THE PRESIDENT: Does that apply to what you read this morning as well as what you read now?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, Your Honor. As Exhibit 378 we offer the reports of the Czechoslovak State Report previously described, those portions which were read for judicial notice.
THE PRESIDENT: They will be received.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I refer now to the official report of the Polish government dated, jointly, London and Nuernberg, December 1945, and certified on the fly page as being the official document of the Polish government to be submitted to the International Military Tribunal under the provisions set forth in appropriate articles of the London Agreement. It is signed and sealed by Dr. Tadeusz Cyprian, Deputy of the Polish representative of the United Nations War Crimes Commission in London, signing on behalf of the Polish government.
The first portion of this Polish Government Report, to which we invite the Tribunal's attention, is that contained on pages 23 to 27.
THE PRESIDENT: May I inquire at this time how long it will probably take to read what you have yet to read?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Oh, at the outside, twenty minutes, Your Honor. Does Your Honor have some objection?
THE PRESIDENT: No.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: This first portion is entitled, "Expropriation and Plunder of Public and Private Property."
"By a decree of January 15, 1940, the whole property of the Polish State was put under 'protection', which practically meant confiscation of the whole State property in the incorporated territories. A special decree of February 12, 1940, dealt with agriculture and forests to the same effect.
"The confiscation of private property in the Western Provinces was initiated by a decree of January 31, 1940. Acquisition of rights or shares, the transfer of any business out of or into the incorporated territory, required special permission.
"The process of confiscation, however, went further. The property of Polish citizens became liable to seizure and confiscation unless the owner acquired German citizenship, in accordance with Hitler's decree of October 8, 1939."
At the bottom of page 25, I continue:
"Plunder and confiscation of Jewish property:
"All measures taken in this respect were designed to deprive the Jewish population in Poland of all material rights. By decree of September 29, 1939, the absence of persons concerned justified the sequestration of their property. The formation of the Ghettos and the deportation of Jews made them forcibly absent, thus rendering their property liable to confiscation.
"More decrees and regulations were issued in this respect. They legalized robbery, but in practice went even further than these robberies under the cloak of law. Among the most striking laws were the following:
"A general carte blanche for the confiscation of Jewish property was given by the decree of September 17, 1940." This decree is enclosed as Enclosure No. 8 in this report.
"Jews were forbidden to buy gold and other precious metals without a special permit.
"Finally, Ordinance 13 to the German Civil Code of July 1, 1943, provided, in paragraph 2, that upon the death of a Jew his property falls to the Reich." This ordinance is contained in this report as Enclosure No. 9.
"Mere quotations from these and other decrees may create a quite wrong impressions to the way the guilty dealt with Jewish property in Poland, but one has to remember that steps concerning Jewish property were only preliminaries to the much greater crimes to come. They were meant to settle the Jewish case for the time being, before the mass attack against Jews as human beings began. Having secured the property of the victims, having made certain that it would not be lost, the process of extermination was set into motion."
Here the report comments:
"'History gives us the right to be ruthless', said Hans Frank when addressing Nazi lawyers in 1933. Throughout the time that Hans Frank was Governor General of Poland he remained faithful to that principle. The confiscation of the property of the Polish State and its exploitation for the benefit of the Reich ruined Poland economically."
Skipping, now to the last portion of this report to which the prosecution invites attention, it begins on page 55 and it is a chapter entitled, "Judicial Murders":
"On December 4, 1941, Goering, Frick, and Lammers signed a decree which virtually outlawed all Poles and Jews in the incorporated Polish territories."
If I may interpolate, the decree there referred to is found on page 48 of Document Book II.
"This decree made Poles and Jews a different and second-rank group of citizens. It meant that Poles and Jews were bound to obey the Reich unconditionally, but, on the other hand, being secondclass citizens, they were not entitled to the protection given by the law to others. In general, German criminal procedure was followed, but exceptions were allowed when the courts were of the opinion that quick administration of justice required some divergence from the formal regulations. In such cases, sentences could be passed which were against and contrary to the accepted rules of procedure. Thus, the law manifestly ratified lawlessness.
"The death sentence came automatically into operation if a Pole or a Jew committed an act of violence against a German on account of the latter's German nationality. The death sentence could be passed also in the following cases:
"1. For removing or publicly damaging posters set up by the German authorities.
"2. For acts of violence against members of the German forces.
"3. For lowering the dignity of the Reich or harming its interests.
"4. For damaging furniture to be used by the German authorities.
"5. For damaging things intended for the public works or public order.
"6. For causing disobedience to regulations and orders issued by the German authorities;
"And several other cases, which in fact justified imprisonment for a short period at the most.
"No Pole, stated official Nazi instructions, was allowed to approach a German woman, to stain the noble bleed of the Herrenvolk. Those who dared to do it, or even did not get beyond the stage of attempting to do so, were inevitably facing death.
"But it was not only the courts, the German courts, which were called upon to pass sentences in these cases. It was found superfluous to arrange trials. A simple order of the police eventually proved sufficient to deprive people of their life. This had particular reference to Poles who were deported to Germany for forced labor. Polish workers were hanged in pursuance of orders issued by the Reichsfuehrer SS and by the police without any judicial proceedings. This practice was generally adopted.
"Further evidence is provided in a letter signed by the President of the District Court and Chief Public Prosecutor in Kattowice, and addressed to the Minister of Justice in Berlin, dated December 8, 1941", of which I quote the following excerpt:
"Against the adoption of this procedure" -- namely, the procedure just referred to -- "the President of the Court and Public Prosecutor of Kattowice raised objections, but they have done so not in the interest of justice. They claimed only that, pro forma, it would be much better if those cases were dealt with by the courts and where the same effect could be achieved under the cloak of law; the prisoners would meet death in any case. As far as jurisdiction in our district is concerned, the courts are in a position to follow the necessity for an immediate penal action by introducing special proceedings. This would have the effect that between the handing over of the case to the prosecution and the execution, not more than three days would elapse."
The text of this letter is enclosed in this report as Enclosure No. 10.
"But later events proved that the German authorities in Poland abandoned the pretense of carrying out judicial proceedings as the Judiciary eventually was left out altogether. Even pro forma trials, which would have been in any case nothing short of judicial murders, were dispensed with and the matter was handed over to the police.
"On November 5, 1942, the Reichsfuehrer SS and the Minister of Justice, Thierack, agreed on a scheme by which 'the Judiciary renounced their right to carry out normal judicial proceedings in penal cases against Poles and Eastern European ethnic groups. Those persons of foreign ethnic groups should, in the future, be handed over to the police. Similar treatment ought to be accorded to Jews and Gypsies.' This agreement was approved by the Fuehrer."
That document is attached to this report as Enclosure No. 11.
"Thus, hundreds of thousands of human beings found themselves at the mercy of the police and Gestapo. They were the final and ultimate judges; they became masters of their lives.
"According to information collected from various sources, it has been established that thousands of Poles became victims of that procedure. Thousands died, hanged as a result of trials conducted without any legal justification. Scores of thousands were murdered without having been Tried at all. An order of the police eventually decided on their being hanged or shot."
The Prosecution offers the portions which we have just read of this Polish State report for judicial notice as Exhibit 379.
JUDGE BRAND: Part of tho same exhibit?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The last of this material currently being offered for judicial notice comprises certain articles from the Hague Convention of 1907 and the Geneva Prisoner of Far Convention of 1929. The articles to which I refer are mentioned by number, both in the indictment and in the opening statement, but it is thought that for purposes of convenience they should be read into the record. Both of these treaties are contained in a United States War Department Technical Manual No. 27-251 entitled "Treaties Governing Land Warfare." In the regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land which are annexed to the Hague Convention of 1907 the following articles are quoted:
"Article 4. Prisoners of war are in the power of the hostile government, but not of the individuals or corps who captured them. They must be humanely treated. All their personal belongings except arms, horses, and military papers remain their property.
"Article 5. Prisoners of war may be interned in a town, fortress, camp, or other place and bound not to go beyond certain fixed limits, but they can not be confined except as an indispensable measure of safety, and only while the circumstances which necessitate the measure continue to exist.
"Article 6. The state may utilize the labor of prisoners of war according to their rank and aptitude, officers excepted.
The tasks shall not be excessive and shall have no connection with the operations of the war."
We omit the remainder of that article.
"Article 7. The government into whose hands prisoners of war have fallen is charged with their maintenance. In the absence of a special agreement between the belligerents prisoners of war shall be treated as regards board, lodging, and clothing, on the same footing as the troops of the government who captured them."
These articles are found on Page 17 of the technical manual described above. On Page 23 we refer to:
"Article 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special conventions it is especially forbidden to employ poison or poisoned weapons or to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army."
On page 31 of this manual we refer to the following articles:
"Article 43. The authority of the legitimate power having, in fact, passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore and insure, as far as possible, public order and safety while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the law enforced in the country.
"Article 45. It is forbidden to compel the inhabitants of occupied territory to swear allegiance to the hostile power.
"Article 46. Family honor and rights, the lives of persons and private property as well as religious convictions and practice must be respected. Private property can not be confiscated."
On Page 33 of the Manual we refer to:
"Article 50. No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they can not be regarded as jointly and severally responsible."
Turning now to the Genova Prisoner of War Convention of 1929, we refer to Page 67 of this manual.
"Article 2. Prisoners of war are in the power of the hostile power, but not of the individuals or corps who have captured them. Measures of reprisal against them are prohibited.
"Article 3. Prisoners of war have the right to have their person and honor respected. Women shall be treated with all regard due to their sex. Prisoners retain their full civil status."
Lastly we refer to Page 69 of this manual.
"Article 4. The power detaining prisoners of war is bound to provide for their maintenance. Difference in treatment among prisoners is lawful only when it is based on the military rank, state of physical or mental health, professional qualifications, or sex of those who profit thereby."
As Exhibit 380 the Prosecution offers for judicial notice the articles of the Geneva and Hague Conventions which we have just read.
THE PRESIDENT: The articles will be received.
MR. KING: The Prosecution calls at this time the witness Rudolf Lehmann. The witness Lehmann will testify in the German language.
RUDOLF LEHMANN, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BLAIR: Hold up your right hand and repeat after me the following oath:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I.
will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KING:
Q Witness, will you please state your name?
A My name is Rudolf Lehmann.
Q You were, were you not, associated with the OKW?
A Yes.
Q Will you tell us briefly what was your rank and what your duties were in the OKW?
A I was the Ministerial director in the command of the high forces, OKW, and I was chief of the legal division of the armed forces.
Q Do you know of the so-called Nacht und Nebel decree which was issued in the latter part of 1941 over the signature of Keitel?
A I am informed - I am very well informed as to how that came about.
Q Will you tell us briefly how the Nacht und Nebel program was supposed to work? In other words, what was the theory upon which this Erlass or decree was passed?
A The Night and Fog, Nacht und Nobel, Decree came about in the following manner: Between Adolf Hitler and the Administration of Justice of the armed forces before the war already, but even more so during the war, there were considerable differences of opinion. Hitler hold it against the Administration of Justice by the armed forces and within the armed forces that they did not sufficiently support his manner of conducting the war.
At times, as I have been told, he used the expression that the military justice indeed sabotaged his conduct of war. These reproaches first emanated from the Polish campaign. There the Military Justice--the Justice Administration of the Armed Forces--were reprimanded that they had not acted sufficiently severe against members of bands. The next reprimands of that kind occurred during the French campaign. The reprimands were to the effect that military justice, it was said, was to severe in cases of pilfering. Then it came to a rather serious difference of opinion. Shortly before the Russian campaign, Hitler had complained so strongly against the Armed Forces should not at all be taken along into Russian campaign. I only explain that very briefly, according to the wish of the prosecutor.
Now, there arose in France, after the beginning of the Russian campaign, the resistance movement which became more active. Hitler complained to the Armed Forces justice administration that on account of their attitude they were not in a position to supress that resistance movement. That is the general background for the nacht and nebel decree.
In detail this is what happened. In the beginning of October 1941, I received a letter from Field Marshall Keitel--but I want to state here that keitel was always in the headquarters, whereas I was always in Berlin. In this letter, which all my assistants have read, Keitel passed on a directive which he had received from Hitler. The letter was quite long, several pages in handwriting. In that letter, it was expressed that Hitler considered the resistance movement in France a tremendous danger for the German troops. It could be seen that the methods previously used were not sufficient to supress that movement.
There was no sense to pass sentences of prison terms when conditions were as they were, and which were handed down after a long period. That was not the right means to deter which the Armed Forces should have at their disposal; therefore, new means would have to be found.
Q. Now, witness, I think you have given us a background on the history of naht and nebel. Will you tell us with some particularity how the theory on which nacht and nebel was based was supposed to work? In what way were the resistors to be handled or treated under the nacht and nebel decree?
A. Yes. That was also stated in that letter by keitel: "The Fuehrer demands," it said, "that Frenchmen who were suspected of such acts during the night and fog"---that is were the expression comes from---"should be brought across the border and that in Germany they should be completely in communicado. That should not apply only to those cases where immediately a death sentence could be passed in France." This measure could be used as a deterrent but not the procedures as have been used heretofore. That was the general plan of Hitler's which did not include anything about the question as to who should deal with these people after they had been brought to Germany.
Q. Yes. Now, witness, did you, in your position with the OKW, negotiate with the Ministry of Justice regarding the nacht and nebel decree?
A. Yes, but not immediately. At first, in a lengthy conference with Field Marshal Keitel, I tried to thwart the entire plan because I disagreed--I definitely disagreed with it. Details about that conference, I am sure are not interesting for us now.
In doing that, I only had a very limited success; that is, Keitel said that he would be ready to speak to the Fuehrer once more. But already on the occasion of this first conference, he stated that the Fuehrer insisted on the carrying out of that thought and he used a term which I cannot forget. Hitler had said with reference, to that: "Nobody can deny that I am a revolutionary of considerable format. But is that is so, I should know best how uprisings can be suppressed." Keitel then spoke once more to Hitler, as he stated, but to no avail. According to Keitel's information, Hitler said that there were such things of which he understood more than jurists do.
In the conference with Keitel, 1 raised the question immediately as to who should deal with these matters in Germany now. Thereupon, Keitel said, "It would be most according to the desire of the Fuehrer if the Secret Service--that is the Gestapo--would deal with it." But we were against that form the very beginning, and also Admiral Canaris was against it with the same severity.
After the argument had gone back and forth, I received the permission from Keitel to get in touch with the Ministry of Justice.
Q. Do you have any reason which you can state at this time as to why Hitler preferred that the Ministry of Justice rather than the Army court system deal with nacht and nebel cases?
A. That question can only have been discussed between Keitel and Hitler. It was a way out which I had suggested, because under all circumstances I wanted to achieve that these matters should continue to be dealt with by judges, and since the aversion of Hitler against the Armed Forces justice was known it could be assumed that he would still prefer civilian courts than us.
Q. Excuse me. Have you finished?
A. I have finished.
Q. Is it or is it not true that Hitler felt at that time that the Ministry of Justice was more politically reliable than the court system of the Army?
A. That I could not state as far as that period was concerned because I held that he considered civilian justice a minor evil than military justice, because beyond doubt he attributed a higher political reliability to civilian justice later because later he took all political criminal cases away from us and gave it to civilian justice. But that was only under the Ministry of Thierack.
Q. When did you first confer with any member of the Ministry of Justice regarding the assumption by the Ministry of Justice of the nacht and nebel program?
A. I went to see Under-Secretary Freisler, I believe, in October '41. I went to Freisler because he dealt with the criminal cases of the Ministry. He was in charge of them.
Q. Can you tell us what purpose you had in mind in going to Freisler; what proposition did you discuss with him?
A. I discussed with him the proposition that the cases which tho military courts in France would not keep should be taken over and dealt with by and tried by the civilian justice administration.
Q. What was Freisler's reaction to this suggestion which you made?
A. He was not enthused about it, but he agreed that one had to try to turn over those to keep these cases for the administration of Justice as such.
Q. Can you tell me this: Did Freisler have the authority to agree on behalf of the Reich Ministry of Justice to assume the trying of Nacht und Nebel cases?
A. That question I can only answer by saying that Freisler told me that first he had to think it over; and secondly, he had to discuss it with Under Secretary Schlegelberger who was at that time in charge of the Ministry.
Q. Is it your impression that Schlegelberger was the individual in the Ministry of Justice to whom Freisler went to secure permission and authority on behalf of the Ministry of Justice to try the Nacht und Nebel cases?
A. That is hard to answer. I can only say from my -- I can only answer it out of my general background by saying that this was a considerable question -- a question of considerable importance, and I thought it was quite clear that Freisler told me that he had to ask the man who was in charge of the Ministry, the acting Minister.
Q. Herr Lehmann, on the 24th of December, -- on the 23rd of December, 1946, you put your name to an affidavit. Do you recall signing an affidavit about that time?
A. Yes.
Q. I point out to you that this affidavit is now in evidence before this Court as Exhibit No. 484. I wish to read you a statement from that affidavit, and ask you a question concerning it after I have read.
it. The statement is as follows: "Schlegelberger, who was then Acting Minister of Justice, was in my opinion the only person who could consent to take over these Nacht und Nebel cases by the Ministry of Justice." I ask you now, do you still agree with that statement?
A. Yes, with the reservations that I have made before; as far as I was informed about the routine in the Ministry.
MR. KING: The Prosecution has no more questions.
CROSS EXAMINATION (RUDOLF LEHMANN) BY DR. BEHLING: (Attorney (Assistant) for Defendants Schlegelberger and von Ammon)
Q. Witness -
THE PRESIDENT: Will you please tell us how you spell your name?
DR. BEHLING: B-e-h-l-i-n-g.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
BY DR. BEHLING:
Q. Witness, you have just reported about your negotiations with the Ministry of Justice at the Ministry of Justice, and in particular about the negotiations with the former State Under Secretary Freisler. Is it correct that Freisler was incharge of the conduct of trials in the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A. Yes, as Chief of the Criminal Department, Department of Criminal Justice in the Reich Ministry of Justice.
Q. On the occasion of your negotiations at that time, did you state to Freisler especially that it was of absolute importance that these matters should not be dealt with outside of the Administration of Justice?
A. That was the purpose of my visit.
Q. What were you afraid would happen if Freisler would not accede to your proposition?
A. That the cases which came to Germany would immediately have to be turned over by us to the Police; and that I did not want; neither did the branch of the armed forces for whom I had negotiated for quite some time about that matter, that is, the administration of Justice in the various branches of the armed forces were mostly concerned with it because they had to carry out these plans.
Therefore, I considered it important that the plans of the Fuehrer should be discussed widely and publicly as possible with the various offices of the armed forces; and it was the concensus of opinion among the various offices who were contacted that one should try to include civilian administration of justice so that the people who were suspected of criminal acts should come before the regular judge.
Q. You believe, therefore, that that guarantee was not given if they were turned over to the Police?
A. No, because there was no court in that sense, or especially by measures especially set up for that purpose; the police, the SS, would have to be made competent for that.
Q. Witness, when you came to Freisler, you had had several internal conferences with the judges of the armed forces court?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it certain at that time already that the Frenchmen concerned had to be brought at any rate to Germany, into Germany, and to be tried here?
A. That they were to be brought to Germany was Hitler's order.
Q. The entire action then was based upon an order of Hitler, which was binding for the subordinate offices?
A. Yes, it was based upon Hitler's order no doubt because nobody else had or could have conceived that thought. I want to re-peat it was based upon an order by Hitler because nobody else could ever have conceived that thought.
Q. In your negotiations internally, as well as with the Ministry of Justice, if I understood you correctly, you practically wanted to circumvent the order of Hitler?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. If I may be permitted to speak about these negotiations in some more detail, I should like to point out that your partner in the negotiations was Freisler.
A. Yes.
Q. The participation of Schlegelberger in these negotiations, as far as you know, is not evident to you?
A. No. Only by conclusions which I have to make after the Ministry of Justice agreed, but as well as I can remember I never talked to Schlegelberger about it.
Q. Did the Ministry of Justice agree in writing, and did that agreement in writing show the signature of Schlegelberger?
A. That I cannot remember; I am sorry.
Q. You said, witness, that during all these negotiations Admiral Canaris was present or took part in them.
A. Yes.
Q. Will you be kind enough to tell the Tribunal, and all those present, something about the character and personality of Admiral Canaris?
MR. KING: If the Court please, I think we object, your Honor, to that question on the ground that it is beyond the scope of the direct examination. We are not interested in other characters at the conference with Freisler.
DR. BEHLING: I believe, however, that this question is very important in order to clarify this matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the reporter read that question.
DR. BEHRING (Continuing)
Q. During these negotiations which you had either with the Minister of Justice or internally, did Admiral Canaris consider them?
A. Yes, it was the position of Canaris in these negotiations --
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, answer the question.
A. Admiral Canaris was Chief of the Office of Auslandabsehr, counterintelligence, in the high command of the armed forces. The purpose of the question by Defense Counsel is obviously for what reasons admiral Canaris was against the transfer to the Police -