THE MARSHAL:The Tribunal is again in session.
DR.RATZ(ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT VON RADETZKY): I would like to ask that the Defendant Von Radetzky be excused today and tomorrow afternoon from attendance in court so that he can visit his wife. This has been approved already for special reasons and I would like instructions to be given that the defendant be brought to Room 57 at 1:30.
THE PRESIDENT:When you say that Von Radetzky will be excused that he may visit his wife, you mean that his wife may visit him.
The Tribunal, of course, will be glad to allow that opportunity for Mrs. von Radetzky to visit von Radetzky this afternoon in Room 57 and the same privilege will be accorded tomorrow afternoon.
DR. RATZ:Thank you, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You are welcome.
DR. KOESSL: My colleague, Dr. Ulmer, asked me to make an application that the Defendant Six be excused tomorrow, Tuesday, the 6th of January, -- that he may be excused for the afternoon only tomorrow and that he be brought to Room 57 so that the closing brief for the Defendant Six can be written.
THE PRESIDENT:The Defendant Six will be excused from attendance in court tomorrow afternoon for the purposes indicated.
DR.KOESSL: (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT SCHUBERT) I ask permission to continue with the questioning of the Defendant Schubert in his own case.
Q (By Dr. Koessl) Witness, please clarify again which figures you knew and which figures you did not know.
AI always knew those figures which were reported for a certain period, but I did not know any possible total figures about the total period of the work of Einsatzgruppe D. I never knew of these at any time.
QDid you yourself never work out the figures and add the figures of the various reports?
ANo, I never did anything like that. I never had orders to do that. In addition those figures, for example, which were with Einsatzgruppe D before I worked there, I could not possibly know, because no more documents existed for that period.
I don't think either that unless customs were changed, lists previously had been kept; I know nothing about this.
QUnder Figure 7 of your affidavit you say that the reports about the operations, losses, number of locations destroyed and the persons killed; which operations were you referring to here at this point of the affidavit?
AThese operations mean the military operations of the Wehrmacht, as they were made known to us for the territory of Einsatzgruppe D. These were purely military operations against Russian troop units or also against partisans.
Here, of course, localities were destroyed during combat and also people were killed.
This is what I was referring to and I believe in the previous investigation, I expressed this quite clearly.
QWhat did you mean to say when you said at the end under Figure 7 "Reports about the civilian sector"?
AThis wording is rather unfortunate, in particular, because it means nothing.
I regretted this and pointed this out to Mr. Wartenberg at the time.
If I had had the opportunity to word this myself, it probably would have said, that these reports also contained reports and informa tion about the situation in the various domestic spheres of the civilian population in the occupied territory.
That is what was meant.
QMr. Warenberg said in the English transcript, page 390 to 391, in the German, 397, that you had the opportunity in the supplementary affidavit of 21 April 1947 to correct everything that was incorrect under Figure 7 in your First affidavit.
Why, on 21 April, or on 24 April, did you not do so?
AMay I correct you first? You mean 21 February and 24 February. I want to correct that.
QYes, that is right.
AThis statement by Mr. Wartenberg here on the witness stand was given about eight months after this affidavit of 4 February, 1947 was signed.
Mr. Wartenberg at the time did not tell me that he would interrogate me again, or, if this should occur, when. I did not know whether I would be interrogated again. He never let me know at any time that at a later date I would be able to give further explanations concerning this affidavit. I mentioned to him that there were some points which were not clear in this affidavit and he told me that if something had been formulated unclearly, it could only mean the same thing, as I had explained it. This was merely a compilation, a summary of this previous interrogation.
QDid you make a supplementary affidavit, apart from the one of 4 February?
ANo, I did sign another affidavit on 21 February, which was rewritten, on 24 February it was signed again.
This affidavit merely contained matters which in the previous interrogation of 18 February had been discussed.
Therefore, for me it was not supplementary affidavit concerning the subjects discussed on 4 February, but is a completely new affidavit with new subjects.
Apart from that, if I may mention it here.
on the wording of these texts in these affidavits. I could not have any influence.
The interrogation was conducted entirely by Mr. Wartenberg and I could not interfere here and say, "Stop here.
We can't do it that way," but I simply had to do as I was told.
QDid you yourself take part in any executions or any preparations for any executions?
ANo.
QDid you yourself ever see an execution?
AYes, I did see an execution near Simferopol on the Crimes.
QHow did this come about? Was this part of your task as Adjutant?
AOf course, it was not part of my work as Adjutant, not even as Chief of the office, because in these two capacities I had nothing to do with the executive task.
Why this order was given to me, I would like to explain according to the special situations which existed for Einsatzgruppe D at the time.
This was the execution which has been discussed here repeatedly.
It was the execution for which the 11th Army had given orders to the Einsatzgruppe to carry it out before a certain time.
This deadline, as far as I know, was Christmas or the end of the year, 1941.
Einsatzgruppe D, in as far as I understand about events there, in my opinion, did everything at the time in order to avoid carrying out the executions by that time.
The Army was informed about this in detail that the kommando at the location in Simferopol in the way of personnel and technically was not able to cope with this matter.
The Army on their part appointed personnel and sent vehicles and fuel to carry out the entire execution, but the previous order concerning the actual execution did not change, so it had to be carried out.
In this situation, I also received instructions in connection with this execution and I think I can say that this only came about because the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe, my codefendant, Mr. Ohlendorf, under those circumstances, which were very difficult for the Einsatzgruppe, wanted to have these matters carried out in a clean and thorough manner.
Herr Ohlendorf and also the local kommando leader of Simferopol, Dr. Braune, themselves inspected these execution repeatedly and beyond that I had received instructions also to inspect various phase of the entire events, not merely to look at them to see whether they were carried out at all, but in what way they were carried out in detail.
THE PRESIDANT:I didn't quite catch that distinction which you drew Witness.
Q (By Dr. Koessl) Which differentiation did you make, whether they were carried out at all or how they were carried out?
That is what you said.
AYes, I understood. What I was trying to say was: my instructions did not require any work which might have had any connection between cause and effect, so that they had to be carried out, but I merely had the order to look at those matters, insofar as whether they were carried out in such a manner as Herr Ohlendorf had ordered these executions in detail.
THE PRESIDENT:Do we understand that you say that you yourself did not make arrangements for the executions, but that you inspected to make certain that the executions were carried out in accordance with the orders issued by Ohlendorf?
THE WITNESS:Your Honor, I would not like to say here that they were carried out, but whether they were carried out in the manner ordered by Mr. Ohlendorf, because the words, "that they were carried out" would necessitate work on my part, which can only cause those ordered to carry out the executions to carry it out.
I did not get such an order.
DR. KOESSL:You only mean the manner, Witness. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT:Let us suppose that the execution was not being carried out in accordance with the rules laid down by Ohlendorf, could you then intervene and instruct them to follow the procedure laid down by the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe?
THE WITNESS:Your Honor, I could not have done this. I would have had to inform Herr Ohlendorf about this, if it had been carried out in a different manner.
I might have tried to tell the officer who was ordered to carry out the execution and to point out to him that in my opinion the manner of execution did not conform with the rules laid down by Ohlendorf and therefore I would have to report about him, but I could not have stopped from carrying out every thing that had been laid down by Herr Ohlendorf, I had no authority to do so.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, if you saw a flagrant violation of the order laid down by Ohlendorf, you would acquaint the officer in charge of the execution with that violation, would you not?
THE WITNESS:Of course, Your Honor, in an emergency I would, of course, have done so.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well.
Q (By Dr. Koessl) What instructions did Herr Ohlendorf give you at the time for your work?
MR. WALTON:If Your Honors please, I want to object to that question as putting the answer in the witness month.
If you will note, in his affidavit he gives two possibilities or two sources from which he could have received his instructions.
I should like very much for the defendant to say of his own volition who gave him the instructions, rather than the suggestion being made by his counsel.
THE PRESIDENT:The point is well taken.
DR. KOESSL:I believe that the prossecution merely objects to the fact that I asked about Ohlendorf, but to the question whether the Defendant Seibert gave instructions I shall bring up later.
I shall ask that.
I don't know whether I understood the prosecution correctly.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, well, why make it so difficult? Just ask him "Who gave you instructions?"
DR. KOESSL:I shall do that now.
Q (BY DR. KOESSL) Witness, who gave you the instruction to be present during this execution?
AI received these instructions from Herr Ohlendorf.
QWhat instructions did Herr Ohlendorf give you?
AI have already said, I had the instruction to watch the various phases of the entire events. That was what Herr Ohlendorf told me to do.
QDid you know the special directives for the carrying out of executions?
AYes. I knew those directives and that is written directives they had been issued to the kommandos and as part of may work in the office. I also heard about these directives.
QApart from this mission, were you given any other instructions, any other missions?
ANo, neither before nor afterward did I carry out any similar mission.
QIn the case of the prosecution, English Transcript Page 250, German page 256, the affidavit by Ohlendorf of 2 April 1947 was mentioned. This affidavit is in Document Book III-D, page 1, as Document No. 2856, Exhibit 148. The prosecution says, and I quote, "In paragraph 3 of the same document, Ohlendorf says that he had sent Schubert as his deputy in order to inspect executions. These inspections of executions, the Defendant Schubert in his own affidavit of 24 February 1947 admits." What I mean is the affidavit Schubert Document Book I, English page 108, German, 141, No_3055, Exhibit 28. What can you say to this statement by the prosecution and the affidavit by Ohlendorf?
A.This wording by the prosecution, in my opinion, is wrong, because the plural is mentioned, that is, those various events are mentioned in the plural.
Concerning the affidavit by Herr Ohlendorf such a wording is incorrect too because Herr Ohlendorf said in his affidavit at no point that I carried out inspections of executions, that is several.
He says that as far as he remembers I carried out one inspections in Simferopol.
Later in his affidavit he says, however, that he assigned for general inspections, apart from myself, the co Defendant Seibert and Herr Gabel.
If the Prosecution wants to charge these inspections, these general inspections also to me, this could only mean official trips in which I took part and on the occasion of which through Herr Ohlendorf or through another member of the staff of the staff of the Einsatzgruppe inspections were carried out for his own sphere of work, but in my opinion general inspections never meant inspections of executions.
In fact in my life I only saw one executions, the execution in Simferopol, on the Crimea which I mentioned before.
Q.Please describe how you carried out your mission and explain in particular whether you interfered in the execution at all in the manner it was carried out.
A.Hay I summarize first briefly and later explain it in detail?
As I had been ordered, I went to the various locations where the various phases of the entire events took place as I was ordered.
I inspected the manner in which the execution was carried out.
In no manner did I have any opportunity nor did I have instructions to interfere in the events which took place.
Q.Who had to supervise those executions?
A.The supervision was carried out by a person who hold the rank of a major.
Q.Were any other officers present and what rank did they have?
A.Apart from this officer who hold the rank of a major, there were two other officers who had the rank of a captain.
Apart from that there were officers who were 1st or 2d Lts.
Q.Could you supervise these officers in carrying out the missions given to these officers?
A.Of course, I could not supervise any missions of these officers neither in regard to the manner in which they executed their task given to them nor could I supervise them at all, because they held higher ranks than I had.
Q.It has just been pointed out to me that the comparison the Army rank, did not come through in the translation.
A.The person in charge of the execution is a Sturmbannfuehrer, and, therefore, an officer who held the rank of a major and apart from that there were two officers who held the rank of a captain.
Q.In the SS, therefore, the major was a Sturmbannfuehrer and the captains were in the SS -
A.Hauptsturmfuehrer.
Q.Did you have any influence in choosing the location where the execution was to be carried out?
A.No, I could not influence this. The location which was chosen for carrying out the execution was fixed right from the beginning and I think I can say that this location was already laid down when the preparations were made for these executions, with which I had nothing to do.
I merely had the instruction to look at conditions of the location where the execution was to be carried out, that is, I was to find out whether in the vicinity it had been secured and whether it was quite safe, that nobody who had nothing to do with it could look at it or watch it.
Q.How long did you stay at that place where the valuables were collected?
A.As far as I can remember or estimate now, I would like to say about a quarter of an hour.
I remember that during my presence at the actual place of execution a truck with about 25 or 30 persons arrived and that these persons were requested there to hand over their valuables.
I witnessed this. I saw how these valuables were collected.
As far as I remember, this event took about a quarter of an hour.
Q.Did you have any special mission concerning the valuables and the collection of them?
A.I did not have a special instruction for this, merely the instruction as I described before, that is, to watch this and to inspect it. whether it was carried out according to the rules laid down by Herr Ohlendorf, that is, whether the collection and the listing had been done in the proper manner.
Q.Had the execution already started when you got there?
A.Yes, it had already started.
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Koessl, is he now describing one certain execution or is he describing generally executions which he inspected?
DR. KOESSL:Your Honor, the witness already testified that he only inspected on one occasion. That is the inspection mentioned in his affidavit and being talked of just now.
EXAMINATION BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q.Well, Witness, I understood you to say that although you only witnessed one execution, you did make some preliminary arrangements in other executions. That is to say, to see that the place was secured so that no one might look in on the executions.
A.Your Honor, I did not carry out any kind of preparations, but
Q.I did not mean that you actually made any physical preparations, but I understood you to say that in your capacity as Adjutant and acting under the instructions of Ohlendorf that from time to time you would inspect locations and sites where executions were to take place and to observe that the necessary security regulations were met and other things which you could make certain were entirely in accordance with regulations.
A.Your Honor, I would like to emphasize again, that except this one execution which I now described, I did not see any other executions and as Adjutant on no occasion did I receive the mission to inspect any executions except this one mentioned concerning the points, Your Honor made just now.
THE PRESIDENT:Proceed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION -- Continued BY DR. KOESSL:
Q.The President asked you whether you made preparations, general preparations for inspections?
A.No, I did not make any preparations for any such inspections, either.
DR. KOESSL:Your Honor, I have just been informed that the interpreter translated "inspect" and "supervise" with the same English word.
What I mean by "inspect" this does not mean "supervise", but only to look at something so that the person who gives instructions to inspect may receive a report about this.
That is all one has to do when inspecting, while "supervising" means a kind of work which includes some power of comand and I wanted to point this out in particular that the witness said that he never supervised but only inspected.
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Koessl, it isn't necessary to amplify this any further; so long as the witness uses the words, "inspect" and "supervise". I am sure the interpreters will give us those words in English.
DR. KOESSL:Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT:Because we don't have any possibility of con fusion between "inspect" and "supervise" as we had between "fehler" and "irrtum."
QWitness, was the execution concluded when you left the location.
ANo, it was not.
QYou also witnessed the shooting of several persons.
Who supervised this incident?
AThis was supervised by the regimental Sturmbannfuehrer, that is, the officer holding the rank of a Major.
QWhat did you have to do with the transport of the persons to be executed at the collecting place in Sinferopol?
AWith the actual transport I had nothing to do, merely had to look at this, too.
I myself did not load any persons, or give any instructions to load any persons.
QTherefore, you were not entitled to supervise or to guard, it was not up to you?
ANo, I was not in charge of the supervision. I did not have to supervise any one, and I was not in charge of anything except for watching and seeing.
MR. WALTON:If it please the Tribunal, I have not serious objection to counsel for the defendant loading him, a little bit, but when he suggests the answer, the complete answer for him, I find myself objecting.
THE PRESIDENT:You want to make a differentiation between leading the witness, and dragging the witness.
MR. WALTON:Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:You think he is dragging him.
MR WALTON:By the bridle, yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT:Please don't drag the witness.
DR. KOESSL:It was only meant to be a summary of what the witness has already said.
BY DR. KOESSL:
QWitness, did you take part in the preparation of getting ready the execution in any way?
ANo, neither in the preparation nor in the actual execution did I take part in any way.
QPlease look at your own affidavit, Document Book I, English page 108, German page 141, Document No. 3055, Exhibit No. 28.
Are the events as you described them during the execution, correctly related in this affidavit?
AInsofar as they refer to the location or the Period they are correct, but the very formulation in the nature of my mission is incorrect.
This refers in particular to the expressions "supervise" and "Inspect," I think it is the same in English.
I think the word "supervise" means those two words in the German language; also the formulation of "I took care of it."
These wordings do not correspond with my actual mission.
QWhy did you not correct these expressions when signing your affidavit?
ABefore signing my affidavit I talked to Mr.Wartenberg for some time about these wordings.
I told him that in place of "supervise", which is obviously deducted from the English, it would be better to use the words, " To inspect" because that was my actual mission, to inspect and not to supervise.
In English I would express it, "To look at".
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Koessl, I, of course, don't recall now whether you questioned Mr. Wartenberg on this subject.
DR. KOESSL:Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:Did you question Mr. Wartenberg?
DR. KOESSL:I asked why the witness did not correct these expressions immediately because that would be obvious.
And now the witness is about to say why he didn't make those corrections, I myself questioned Mr. Wartenberg for a long time.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes. Would you please give me the reference to that interrogation in the transcript so I may look at it when we recess?
DR. KOESSL:Yes.
MR. WALTON:I shall get a copy of the transcript during the lunch hour, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well, Mr. Walton will get me the English transcript.
That will be allright, Dr. Koessl?
DR.KOESSL:Yes, your Honor.
BY DR. KOESSL:
QWhy did you not correct this, witness?
AI was not able to make these corrections. During our conversation Mr. Wartenberg gave me repeatedly to understand that he did not see any difference in the wording he used and my explanations in his opinion.
He said repeatedly this was merely quibbling, and the correction of the expressions was not permitted, and, I would like to say here specifically that, if I wished to make corrections that I had to tell Mr. Wartenberg about these beforehand, and, Mr. Wartenberg had declared repeatedly, "you can only make such corrections which I allow you to make", and thus, on 21 February, when this affidavit was submitted to me for the first time, I was allowed to make eight corrections, but the corrections of the other wordings or phrases, however, I was not allowed to make, but Mr. Wartenberg told me that at an appropriate time I would be able to explain these wordings as I wanted to.
QWhen did you sign this affidavit?
AThis affidavit, which is here in the Document books now, was signed on 24 February 1947.
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Koessl, opposite paragraph 3 in that affidavit there appears a note, "handwritten corrections initialed H/ScH, 24/2/47."
Witness, what correction did you make in that paragraph?
AYour Honor, if I understood you correctly, this must be the only correction which I made in the affidavit on 24 February in my handwriting.
QWell, did it refer to a correction in paragraph 3, or did it refer to a correction on that page, generally?
ASofar as I can recollect, your Honor, this handwritten correction refers to the beginning of this paragraph 3, namely, the date "in December 1941."
I believe this was changed in handwritten, and that it said previously "in January or February 1942."
this is - and I shall come to that again - the change of the text of the other affidavit which I gave on 21 February 1947, concerning the same subject.
QWell, if you were already addressing yourself to that paragraph, and making one important change, namely the date, why couldn't you insist upon changing the word "Supervise" if you did not like the word "Supervise."
AYour Honor, in this paragraph 3 there is another important point which I would like to have had corrected, if Mr. Wartenberg would have permitted me to do so.
It is the wording, "I was assigned for this by Ohlendorf or by Seibert," right at the beginning.
At the time I pointed out to Mr. Wartenberg that this wording "or by Seibert" could not be right because at that time Herr Seibert was not with the Einsatzgruppe at all, but he was on leave.
I, therefore, would have liked to cross it out, but Mr. Wartenberg told me that in my interrogation on 18 February I had said when he questioned me that "Herr Ohlendorf or Seibert gave me that order."
I told him thereupon that possibly I might have said that at first, but when considering this I had to correct myself. Of course, I knew exactly at that time that Herr Seibert was not present.
THE PRESIDENT:Would you think that this might be an appropriate time to recess. For Lunch-Time, Dr. Koessl?
DR. KOESSL:Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:45.
THE MARSHAL:The Tribunal will recess until 1345 hours.
(Recess until 1345 hours, 5 January 1948.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The session began at 1345 hours, 5 January 1948.)
DIRECTEXAMINATION - continued
HEINZSCHUBERT - resumed
THE MARSHAL:The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. KOESSL:May I go on?
THE PRESIDENT:Proceed. BY DR. KOESSL:
QWitness, when did you sign the affidavit which was discussed before?
AThis affidavit which was mentioned in the proceedings which is contained in the Document Book was signed by me 24 February 1947 but I would like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that as early as 21 February 1947 I signed an affidavit of the same contents. In this affidavit I had 8 corrections which I made before I signed it. After it had been signed by me and I returned it to Mr. Wartenberg, in 8 copies, Mr. Wartenberg informed me that now he would have this affidavit re-written owing to the fact that so many. corrections in handwriting had been made and that he would then give it back to me for signature.
QDid you, before you signed the affidavit on 21 February 1947, ask Mr. Wartenberg whether you might be able to correct these sentences and what did he say to you when you asked him?
AHe said to me what I have already said before, that he saw no reason for any corrections as the corrections and limitations which I had made he only regarded as a game with words and, therefore, he was not willing to have this correction made and he also added that at the proper time I could give the proper explanations and make any statements I would like to make.
Therefore, this correction never came about.
THE PRESIDENT:Let me understand this clearly. One affidavit was signed 4 February, is that correct?
AYes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT:Then which one was it in which the 8 corrections were made, the one of 4 February or the one dated 24 February?
ANeither the one nor the other but that was the affidavit of the 21 February in which the corrections were made in handwriting and these corrections which were made in handwriting were then contained in the affidavit of 24 February except one particular part.
MR. WALTON:Owing to circumstances surrounding the affidavit which is not before the Tribunal and which has not been introduced in evidence I think such testimony is immaterial.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, which one is before the Tribunal? which number?
MR. WALTON:The one of the 4th of February and one of the 24th and now he speaks of one of the 18th which has nothing to do with the affidavit in the hands of the Tribunal as a prosecution exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, calling your attention, witness, to the affidavit which was signed on 24th day of February we see opposite paragraph 3 the words "handwritten correction - initials H.Sch. 24/2/47". Was this written by you after the affidavit had been rewritten by Wartenberg?
A your Honor, the copy which your Honor is quoting at the moment I have not seen but I may assume that it is the original of the affidavit which I made out on 24 February in 8 copies and which I signed but I myself have not seen the affidavit since then.
I only know the cyclostyled copy in the Document Book.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes. An affidavit was submitted to you and you made numerous corrections or a number of corrections. Mr. Wartenberg then said he would have it rewritten, is that correct?
AYes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT :And he brought it back to you and you signed it?
AFirst I read it through. Mr. Wartenberg submitted it to me making the remark that this was the affidavit of the 21 February newly issued but unfortunately I had to establish the fact that it was not the same wording - it was not like the affidavit of the 21. Therefore, I was a bit suspicious and I looked at the affidavit and I was very much shaken because this particular point had meanwhile been changed in the text. I had trusted that this, the copy which had already been made out, would be submitted to me again without the text being changed.
THE PRESIDENT :Well, you did even on this re-written affidavit then make a correction?
AYes, as far as I remember one correction and that was referring to the change in the text of the affidavit of the 21st. In this affidavit of the 21st it had said under # 3 "In December 1941" and if I remember correctly this date December 1941 in the affidavit on 21 February was put in by me in handwriting and after it was put in its final form on the 24, now, in the new edition, the wording appeared "In January or February 1942."
THE PRESIDENT:And you made the correction?
AYes, but only the date, nothing to the wording which in this connection is most important.
I was not permitted to make any further corrections and I drew the attention of Wartenberg to the fact that this period in connection with my statement as to who gave me the order and now to my surprise the date had been changed.
THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Wartenberg brought you the re-written affidavit.
He handed it to you and you read it. After reading it you made a change in the date.
That's correct, isn't it?
AYes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT:Now, why didn't you also make whatever other corrections were required since you did make one correction?
AYour Honor, I think that Mr. Wartenberg said when I said that some statement of mine had been changed that he could not have resisted and he had to admit that the wording should be chosen again which had already been chosen - that was December 1941.
THE PRESIDENT:Now, just a moment. We are through with the date.
You have made that correction. Let's not talk about that date any more.
you have made that correction.
Now we ask you why didn't you correct the word 'supervise# if you didn't like that word?
AI didn't like it on the 24, and I uttered my misgivings but on the 24 again I was not permitted to correct this just as it was on the 21st.
THE PRESIDENT:I don't understand you saying you were not permitted.
You had the paper in your hands. you crossed out "January - February 1942". you wrote in "December". Why didn't you then go over to the word "supervise", cross that out, and write in another word.