"The German Armed Forces entered the war fully respecting international agreements."
THE PRESIDENT: Where is this part?
DR. STAHMER: Page twenty-three, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Which volume?
DR. STAHMER: In the trial brief.
THE PRESIDENT: We seem only to have twenty-two pages in our trial brief. Are there two volumes?
DR. STAHMER: Yes, there are two volumes to that. That was divided because of translating. May I continue?
"The German Wehrmacht entered upon the campaign while fully adhering to international agreements. No extensive encroachments by German soldiers were noted. Individual lapses were severely punished. Announcements and reports of atrocities committed against German soldiers followed immediately on the beginning of hostilities. These reports were carefully investigated. The result was laid down by the Foreign Office, German Foreign Office, in "White Papers", which were sent to Geneva. In this way the "White Paper" came into being which deals with the crimes against the laws of war and humanity committed by Russian soldiers."
GENERAL RUDENKO: Your Honors, defense counsel for Goering, Dr. Stahmer, intends to submit to the Tribunal and to read into the record excerpts from the so-called "White Book" which was published by the Hitler Government in 1941 in accordance with some of the violations which took place regarding the German prisoners of war. I think that these excerpts can not be submitted and read into the record here because of the following reasons: are relevant to this case; there can be submitted to theTribunal only documents which refer to the crimes which were perpetrated by the major German criminals.
The "White Book" is a series of documents of invented data regarding violations which were perpetrated not by the Fascist Germans but by other countries.
Therefore the data contained in the "White Book" can not serve asevidence in this case.
This conclusion is very well founded, because the "White Book" is a publication which served the purpose of Fascist propaganda and which was fed by inventions and falsifications in order to hide crimes which were perpetrated by the Fascists. Therefore I should request the Tribunal to refuse the reading into the record or submitting to the Tribunal excerpts from the so-called "White Book."
THE PRESIDENT: On what theory do you justify the presentation of this evidence, Dr. Stahmer?
DR. STAHMER: The request, whether it is possible and admissible that these "White Books" should be referred to during this trial as evidence, has been discussed repeatedly. In particular it was the subject of the statement when we were concerned with the question of whether I would be allowed to refer to this book as evidence.
So far as I know this has been admitted as evidence, and it was pointed out during that discussion which arose because of an objection which was raised at the time, so far as this part of the evidence is concerned, where it is of importance for establishing the value of evidence. At the time I pointed out certain actions which were taken against German prisoners of war so as to make it possible to understand what measures were taken on the part of Germany. One can not understand the deeds committed by these men who carried out these actions; one can not understand their inner attitude if you do not look at the facts and conditions under which these actions took place, and if you do not investigate the motives which caused them to take these actions. And because of the importance of the motive, and so as to understand the accusations which were raised against the Germans, it seems to me that reference to this document is most important.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you finished?
DR. STAHMER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we are here to try the major war criminals; we are not here to try any of the signatory powers. Therefore you must justify the introduction of evidence against the signatory powers in some legal way.
DR. STAHMER: The presentation, if I may repeat that, is due to the following arguments and reasons: members of foreign armed forces crimes were committed which are against the Geneva Convention. Furthermore, it is tried to make it understandable that if such excesses and perpetrations took place on the part of the Germans they were caused by the fact that similarly the other side committed similar perpetrations, and that for that reason those deeds must be judged more mildly than if the opponents had conducted themselves correctly. It is a question of the motive, and this is important in connection with these facts.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you attemtping to justify the introduction of this evidence on the ground of reprisals?
DR. STAHMER: Not only on the strength of reprisals but also on the basis of the motive.
THE PRESIDENT: You are asking us to admit a document a German governmental document. Now, under the Charter we are bound to admit documents, governmental documents, and reports of the United Nations, but it is no where said that they were at liberty to admit documents issued by the German Government. We can't tell whether those documents contained facts truly stated or not.
DR. STAHMER: We are here concerned with and these documents are records of legal proceedings. These proceedings or investigations must in my opinion have some value as evidence just as have official documents. They were legal documents, records, of court proceedings.
GENERAL RUDENKO. I should like Your Honors to emphasize one thing here. Defense counsel Stahmer tries to submit these documents in order to, as he says, to submit his reasons which would explain the crimes of the Germans. I should like to state here that in those documents, which have already been submitted by the prosecution and were introduced here and submitted to the defendant G oering, state that the documents regarding the crimes were prepared before the beginning of the war.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, what are the dates of those documents that you are asking us to admit?
DR. STAHMER: I have them here, individually.
(A short pause).
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I suggest, your Honor that I support fully the objection made by General Rudenko. I had supposed the one thing that Counsel on both sides were agreed upon, when the matter was under discussion before, was that no reprisals against prisoners of war are tolerated. Even my learned adversary, Dr. Exner, agreed that that is the law. be excused. For what crimes are these the motives? Counsel says they are barren of motives. What is the notive in shooting American or British fliers, that there were some violations on the part of the Russians as they claim? The only way, it seems to me, that evidence of this character is admissible would be to bring it under the doctrine of reprisal very strictly by taking specific offenses and saying. This offense we admit but we committed it in reprisal for certain other specified offenses." prisoners of war are admittedly inadmissible and carry us far afield in the trial of this case.
DR. STAHMER; May I point out one fact: For instance, I have here a telegram originating with the representative of the Foreign Office with the OKH, Supreme Command of the Army. It is directed to the Foreign Office, August, 1941. In other words, this is an official document. Until now, the Prosecution has submitted official documents to a considerable degree and they have been used as evidence against the Defendants. In other words, here when we have an official document for a presentation which is in favor of the Defendant then it seems to me that this should be admitted, too, provided that this is legally possible. Formally, it seems to me that we are here concerned with a telegram coming from a representative of the Foreign Office with the Army Command, addressed to the Foreign Office, dated August 1941. It says, in the operational report No. 11, which was captured -- it was found that a division
THE PRESIDENT: You must not read it, as we are discussing its admissibility.
DR. STAHMER: I see. I beg your pardon. I had misunderstood you.
Mr. President, you asked me what document -
THE PRESIDENT: The date of the White Book.
DR. STAHMER: The date of the White Book. I see. I beg your pardon. I misunderstood. It is Berlin, 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: That is not a date. That is a year.
DR. STAHMER: Yes, sir. It says, "Crimes against the laws of war and humanity, contained in documents compiled by the Foreign Office, first volume, Berlin, 1941." That is what it says. Adn the date of its publication is not apparent from the book itself. After that, follow the individual documents and investigations which are contained in this book, and then follow a number of records which have individual dates.
THE PRESIDENT: Then there is nothing to show when that document was communicated, either to the soviet Government or as to when it was communicated
DR. STAHMER: It has been communicated to Geneva. It was handed to the Red Cross in Geneva.
THE PRESIDENT: When?
DR. STAHMER: In 1941. I had applied to have these books sent over from Geneva and to make inquiries in Geneva at the Red Cross. issued by the Foreign Office? It is a collection of a number of reports contained in an official document.
THE PRESIDENT: That is not the real point that the Tribunal is considering. The question is, How can you justify on a trial of the major war criminals of Germany, evidence against Great Britain or against the United States of America or against France? If you are going to try the actions of all those four signatory powers, apart from other considerations, there would be no end to the trial at all, and their conduct has got no relevance to the guilt of the major war criminals of Germany unless it can be justified by reference to the doctrine of reprisal, and that cannot be justified in any way.
And therefor the Tribunal considers the document is irrelevant.
DR.STAHMER: Furthermore, on the subject of the aerial war, I am drawing your attention to page 25 of my trial brief, that the question of guilt is influenced by the question of whether the German Air Force went into the attack upon other countries after the British Air Force carried out a number of attacks against the civillian population -
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFFE: My Lord, I object to this evidence I wasn't quite sure whether Dr. Stahmer had passed dealing with this evidence with regard to the air war or whether he was illustrating his argument. I want to make it quite clear that I object to the first part of it as being too remote, that is, the evidence about the various conferences which took place with regard to the regulation of aerial warfare. the documents which purport to show that Great Britain attacked non-military targets. Where I have been able to check the allegations, I find there is a complete dispute as to whether the targets were military or non-military targets, and therefore I cannot accept the German official reports as being evidence of any purported value on their part, and I respectfully submit that unless the Tribunal had authority from the Charter they ought to take the same line.
I make these two additional points to the points raised by my learned friends, General Rudenko and Justice Jackson, on the general question.
I do not want to take up more time with the argument by developing that point. I will be pleased to help with any aspect of it.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me, Dr. Stahmer, that this matter stands upon exactly the same footing as the matter upon which we have just ruled.
DR. STAHMER: That is right. aerial warfare -- that is quoted at page 27. This is a statement from a French General, which is concerned with the fact that the German Air Force in Poland adhered to the laws of warfare and only attacked military targets. I believe that against the reading of that quotation there would not be any objection. That is page 27.
THE PRESIDENT: Page 27 of the trial brief?
DR. STAHMER: There I mention a quotation from General Armengaud, the French Air Attache of Warsaw on September 14, 1939.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. STAHMER: There it is said that after the outbreak of war the German Air Force under its Commander in Chief, Goering, did not, by order of Hitler, attack any open cities in Poland. This is confirmed by the British Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Butler, on September 6, 1939. The letter of General Armengaud said the following:
"I must emphasize that the German Air Force acted according to the laws of war; it only attacked military targets and, if civilians were often killed and injured, this happened because they were near these military targets. It is important that this should be known in France and in England, so that no reprisals will be taken, so that there is no cause for reprisals, and so that total air warfare will not be let loose by us."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, what is the origin of that?
DR. STAHMER: It is contained in the document concerning the bombing war, Number 16. It says, "Report of the French Air Attache at Warsaw, General Armengaud." It is dated September 14, 1939, and then comes the report, from which I have just quoted an extract.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. STAHMER: I am offering that.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. STAHMER: And now I am proceeding to page 30 of the trial brief. It says under Figure 10, where I am referring to the creation of the Secret State Police by the defendant Goering, a quotation is statedthere from the words of the book, "Hermann Goering, the Man and the Work", Document Book 2, page 53 to 54, which I submit as exhibit number 44. I quote the following passage:
"It can be seen from the Stettin trial and also from ethers, Goering took drastic measures against men who acted on their own authority against his instructions.
"The Ministerpresident gave an insight into the supervision of political prisoners to hundreds.
He did not wait until asked; the offer came from him.
"--On the occasion of the Christmas ammesty of 1933, he ordered the release of nearly 5,000 prisoners from the concentration camps. 'Even they must be given a chance. ' It would have been only too understandable if those released had everywhere found doors and gates closed to them whichever way they turned. That, however, was not in keeping with the spirit of this act of mercy. Nobody was to think himself shut out. Therefore, Goering, in a clearly worded decree, ordered that no difficulties were to be placed in the way of those released, by the authorities or the public. If this action were to have any point, all attempts were to be made to receive these people, who had sinned against the state, into the community again as full fellow Germans."
And from the last paragraph, I am reading the second sentence:
"In September 1934 he ordered the release of a further 2,000 prisoners in a second ammesty." a few days ago, and I request that it be admitted into evidence. It is an unsolicited telegram originating from a certain Hermann Winter, Berlin W 20, Eisenach Street 118. It has been included in the document book.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: If we are to examine unsolicitied correspondence or telegrams, if it is to become evidence. I have a washbasket full of it in my office that, if that kind of material could be used as evidence in this case without any verification, I could bring hare in rebuttal. It does seem to me that we should know something about this, more than just a wire has come in from some unknown person who may not even have been the signer; maybe it is an assumed name. I think that we are entitled to a little better foundation than that.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, have you any other basis?
DR. STAHMER: I have no other basis, and I beg to have your decision whether this is admissible as evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I do not think we could admit it simply as a telegram which has been received by you from an unknown person.
DR. STAHMER: I asked your decision; therefore, it has been refused.
THE PRESIDENT: Of the trial brief?
DR. STAHMER: Of the trial brief, page 34, yes, figure 12. With respect to the question of whether one could blame the defendant of having had confidence in Hitler and followed him, it is important to know Churchill's attitude, expressed in his book, "Step by Step," and I am quoting two passages, Document Book Number 2, Page 46. It says -
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: This is in 1937, before the events with which we have mainly been dealing here. I do not think it is very important. Mr. Churchill's speeches are well known, but I do think that we waste time going into Mr. Churchill's opinions back in 1937, before the event, when he is doubtless of the same position as Dahlerus, the witness, with reference to his knowledge of what was going on behind the scenes.
THE PRESIDENT: In as much as we have already received this book and some passages from it, you may state this.
DR. STAHMER: I may state it? very well, Page 187, in an article, "Frienship with Germany" of 17 September 1937:
One can condemn Herr Hitler's system and still marvel at its patriotic achievement. Should our country be defeated I could only desire that we would find an equally indomitable champion who would give us our courage again.
THE PRESIDENT: I only said that you could read it because you had read from this book of Mr. Churchill's but at the same time it seems to be absolutely irrelevant.
a description of Hitler's personality. I consider it of importance because I contribute considerable weight to Churchill's judgment. It says -
THE PRESIDENT: But, Dr. Stahmer, don't you think we have heard sufficient about Hitler's personality?
DR. STAHMER: Yes, but not from that source.
THE PRESIDENT: Presumably the Defendant Goering knows more about Hitler than Mr. Churchill.
DR. STAHMER: If the Tribunal does not wish to have me read it, then of course, I will fulfil that wish.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is cumulative.
DR. STAHMER: In that case I have finished. May I just make one reservation with regard to the arguments which I haven't been able to raise. As I said this morning, I had a certain amount of evidence which I haven't been able to submit because I haven 't received it yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Would this be a convenient time, if your Honor please, to make the record concerning the documents which I was to offer formally for the record?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't quite follow? What documents are you referring to?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The ones used on cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: -- which your Honor spoke to me about.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I understand they have been handed to the Secretary and they have been marked.
The affidavit of Halder is US 779. It is offered.
Document No. 3700-PS is offered as US Exhibit 780.
Document No. 3575-PS is offered as US Exhibit 781.
Document No. 3787-PS is offered as US Exhibit 782.
Document No. 2523-PS is offered as US Exhibit 783.
Document No. 014-PS is offered as US Exhibit 784.
Document No. 1193-PS is offered as US Exhibit 785.
Document No. EC-317 is offered as US Exhibit 786.
Document No. 3786-PS is offered as US Exhibit 787.
Document No. 638-PS is offered as US Exhibit 788.
Document No. 1742-PS is offered as US Exhibit 789,
M. CHAMPETIER DE RIBES: Mr. President, Dr. Stahmer in his speech did not speak of document No.26, which is a note from the German Government to the French Government concerning the treatment of German prisoners in France in 1940. The reasons which made us reject the White Book from the discussion make it necessary to reject this document too, and I gather that Dr. Stahmer must have understood that for the same reasons and, therefore, did not mention it. I would like to know whether he understood it this way and have this confirmation.
DR. STAHMER: I haven't mentioned the document.
THE PRESIDENT: I call on Counsel for the Defendant Hess.
DR. SEIDL (Counsel for the Defendant Rudolf Hess): Mr. President and your Honors: before entering into collecting evidence, upon request from the Defendant Hess I have to make the following remarks. it is to be applied, as far as other crimes than war crimes are established the subject of the trial, but he expressly assumes full responsibility for all acts or laws which he has signed. Furthermore, he assumes responsibility for all decrees and directives which he, in his capacity of Deputy of the Fuehrer and Minister of the Reich, has issued. For those reasons he does not desire to be defended in any matters which refer to sovereign matters of German affairs. For that reason, that applies to matters of the state and similar affairs. clarify -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, the interpreter finds it difficult to hear you. Perhaps you are speaking a little bit too far from the microphone.
DR. SEIDL: This applies, for instance, to the tasks and activities of the foreign organization, of the NSDAP -- the Party.
Over and above that, evidence will only be submitted to the Tribunal where it is necessary to ascertain historical truths. This applies, among other things, to the causes which made Rudolf Hess undertake his flight to Britain and to the intentions which he was pursuing at the time. Considering the acceleration desired by the Tribunal, I shall forego the first volume altogether. Any documents from that I will not read, and I will therefore ask the Tribunal to take cognizance of those parts of that book which have been marked in red. I shall only read the affidavit which is at the end of the document book. It is the affidavit of the former secretary of the Defendant Rudolf Hess, Hildegard Fath, and I shall read furthermore-
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, if you are passing from your opening remarks and going to deal with the documents, I think it is right to point out to you that there can be no challenge to the jurisdiction of this Court, here. Article 3 provides that the Tribunal shall not be challenged by the Prosecution or by the Defendants or their Counsel, and the Tribunal cannot hear any argument upon that subject. Now you can go on with your documents.
DR. SEIDL: Very good. I shall furthermore read from Volume II the record of a conversation between the Defendant Rudolf Hess and Lord Simon, which took place on the 10th of June, 1941, in England. only read the affidavit of the witness Hildegard Fath, page 144 of the document book.
This affidavit informed of the consequences of an incorrect affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that right, Dr. Seidl, 144. In our colume 2, it seems to be part of the conversation.
DR. SEIDL: It is 164.
THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon. Yes, go on.
"Having been instructed on the consequences of a false sworn statement, I declare the following under oath, to be submitted to the International Military Tribunal in Nurnberg."
Then comes the "Personal Data;" and I am quoting literally from Hildegard Paths:
"I was employed as private secretary of the Fuehrer's deputy, Rudolph Hess, in Munich, from 17 October 1933, until his flight to England in May 1941.
"Beginning in the summer of 1940 -- I cannot remember the exact time -by order of Mess I had to procure secret weather reports about climatic conditions over the British Isles and over the North Sea, and to forward them to Hess. I received the reports from a Captain Busch. I also received reports partly from Miss Sperr, the secretary of Hess, with his liaison staff in Berlin.
"Hess left a letter behind on his departure by air for England, which was handed to the Fuehrer ata time when Hess had already landed in England. I read a copy of the letter. The letter began with the words like this: 'My Fuehrer, when you receive this letter, I shall be in England.' I do not remember the exact wording of the letter. Mainly, Hess occupied himself in the letter with the proposals which he wanted to present in England in order to achieve peace. I do not remember the details of the proposed settlement. I can however state with all certainty that no word was mentioned about the Soviet Union or about the fact that a peace treaty was to be concluded with England in order to have the back free for another front. If this would have been mentioned in the letter, then I most certainly would have remembered that. I had to gain the absolute impression from the contents of the letter that Hess undertook this extraordinary flight in order to prevent further bloodshed, and in order to create favorable prerequisites for the conclusion of a peace.
"In my capacity as secretary of Rudolph Hess, for a period of years, I have had an opportunity of learning his attitude towards certain questions.
If it is now told to me that in a letter of the Reich Minister of Justice to the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellory, Lammers, of 17 April 1941, it is mentioned that the Fuehrer's deputy has presented the introduction of corporal punishment against Poles in the annexed Polish territories for consideration, then I cannot believe that this attitude of that department headed by Hess was due to a personal decision of his. Such a proposal would be totally contradictory to the attitude which the Fuehrer's deputy has shown on similar questions on other occasions." 166 of the document book. From the first two columes of the document book I shall, as I have already said, only read parts from a discussion between Hess and Lord Simon. So as to prevent the report of that discussion to be split, may I beg permission of the Tribunal to read this document on Monday, next?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. You mean not to go on any more now?
DR. SEIDL: With the permission of the Tribunal, I would then finish now?
THE PRESIDENT: Have you no other document you wish to produce?
DR. SEIDL: I beg your pardon. There are certain passages in parts of the document books which I propose to read byt I should prefer to refer to those documents coherently during my presentation to the Tribunal later on.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Dr. Seidl, if you wish it, we will adjourn now.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 23 March 1946 at 1000 hours.)
THE PRESIDENT: Have you consulted the Defense Counsel as to the order in which they wish to take these supplemental applications?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have the order which the Tribunal has, beginning with Streicher.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps that would be the most convenient then. Is Streicher's counsel ready? Dr. Marx?
DR. MARX: Your Honors, Mrs. President, for the defendant Julius Streicher I have applied that Fritz Herrwerth be called as a witness before the Tribunal. This witness is a man who has been in the immediate vicinity of the defendant Streicher for years and who, because of that, is in a position to speak about all political events and give information on them which would be decisive for the decision and judgment in the case of Streicher in a number of directions. In particular, I have applied for this witness because he was present during the nights of November 9 and 10 when the defendant Streicher had a conference with the SA leader von Obernitz, in the course of which von Obernitz informed Streicher that he, Obernitz, had received an order to carry out anti-Jewish demonstrations during that night.
DR. MARX: Streicher wishes to establish the fact that he told von Obernitz that he, Streicher, wished to keep distant from the whole matter and that he considered these demonstrations a mistake and that he refused to have any part in them. Subsequently he had received that order from Berlin and had to carry it out.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, do you object to this alteration of our previous order?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, we didn't see any change in the situation from when the Tribunal decided it, but we don't want to press against this witness being called orally, except that we must point out that there isn't any change.
All these matters were gone into by the Tribunal. If the Tribunal feels that it would be better that the witness should be called orally, then the Prosecution will not take any objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Have these interrogatories been drawn up?
DR. MARX: No, they have not yet been completed. I beg your pardon, Mr. President, is that question put with reference to the witness Herrwerth?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. MARX: Yes, the questions have been completed--the questions which the Defense wishes to put.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, we will reconsider that. You have got something else haven't you, Dr. Marx. You want some document; you have got a document you are asking for, have you not, or don't you ask for that?
DR. MARX: May I talk, Mr. President? Mr. President, in fact I should like to ask that the two documents which I have referred to be placed at my disposal. That is the matter of the trial against Karl Holz in the year 1931 and the files of the disciplinary court-martial against Julius Streicher, and in that connection I have unfortunately not been able to give you the year, but I think it was psobably the year 1931.
THE PRESIDENT: But, Dr. Marx, did we not, with the agreement of the Prosecution, strike out a passage from a document which was critical of the Defendant Streicher? Does that not render this evidence entirely irrelevant?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That was about the witness Lothar Streicher, the son, about an interview that took place in prison at which there were certain allegations, and these were struck out by the consent of the Prosecution. I confess I don't know whether the disciplinary proceedings in the matter of Streicher-
DR. MARX: I beg your pardon. Mr. President, if I may speak, the matter in which Lothar Streicher is playing a part is an affair from the Goering report concerning the visit and the conversations of Streicher had with three youthful criminals, during which Streicher was supposed to have taken an improper attitude. Lothar Streicher had been applied for as a witness by me to testify that at that time no such event occurred. That, in other words, is with reference to the report of the Goering commission, whereas the other matter is concerned with a disciplinary action, and those proceedings were completed in 1931.
They were heard by the disciplinary court at Munich.
THE PRESIDENT: Wasn't it all in connection with the same alleged offense by Streicher?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have the details now, if I might read them. I think it makes them clear. The first application in relation to the proceedings against Karl Holz: The document requested herein will be used to prove the following facts:
During these proceedings Dr. Erich Bischof, an authority on the Talmud, from Leipzig, gave evidence under oath that there was, in the Jewish religious book "Sohar", a law allowing ritual murder.
THE PRESIDENT: But, Sir David, there are two different applications, aren't there? There is this application with reference to thie Jewish religious book and then there is the other application with reference to the trial of Karl Holz.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: As I understood it, My Lord, this application is headed "files in the trial in the matter of Karl Holz," and one of the pieces of evidence in the trial of Karl Holz, according to Dr. Marx's application, was the evidence of Dr. Erich Bischof as to the Talmud; and the application goes on to say that "those facts are relevant to my defense for the following reasons:
"The accused wishes to prove with these court records -- that is, the record from the trial of Holz -- "that the 'Stuermer' did not deal with the question of ritual murder contrary to his better knowledge." That is, as I understand it, that the "Stuermer" dealt with ritual murder according to the knowledge of Dr. Bischof, as expressed at that trial.