frontier currency systems existing between the Reich and the Holland terri tory thus by way of abusing any monetary matter by the occupying power and adding inadmissible German requirements in the matter of its production exigencies 500,000,000 Reichsmarks.
24 March 1941 the frontier control between Netherland occupied territory and Germany was also done away with, probably on order of Goering, in order to expedite the pillage of Netherland economic system. When the forces of the army began to be in control of the Reichsmark, Seyss-Inquart, on 1 September 1944, then became systematic in its destruction. The objective which the Germans proposed in the Netherlands were the following: docks, port installations, or development lines, bridges, railway equipment. Secondly: To bring about floods in the western part of Netherland. Thirdly; to seize raw materials, half finished products, manufactured products, machines. At times by requisition, at times by monetary payment and in numerous cases by simple armed thefts. Fourth: To force by stealing where valuable articles were, like diamonds, and to seize illegally. The results of these measures for which the accused Seyss-Inquart is responsible, or which he shared the regular responsibility to throw Holland into a dissolute state.
I have now concluded, Mr. President, the case of Seyss-Inquart.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, how long a time do you anticipate you will take this afternoon, because I understand that the case against the defendant Hess will be presented afterwards, and it is important that he should finish that day, so that the chief prosecutor may have a full day for his opening statement.
M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, with the evidence of yesterday, and today I have yielded to the desire of the Tribunal, I understand perfectly your concern to shorten as much as possible the trial, and with this point in view this morning I shortened my remarks which I was going to mate to you. That is why I state in the name of the French prosecutors I shall now prosecute the case of the other defendants, which was on the schedule, but I merely ask the Tribunal to permit me simply, except for the cases of Keitel and Jodl, may it please the Court, present at the beginning of this afternoon session my presentation.
Mr. Quarte calls to my mind we will try to make it as Short as possible, in that way the British Delegation will have two hours necessary for the case of Hess.
May it please the Court, Mr. Quarte will take the floor at two o'clock for one hour, and that will leave two hours for the British Delegation.
THE PRESIDENT: Another question that I would like to ask you, M. Mounier, as to the document against the other defendants, other than Keitel and Jodl, have they been furnished to the defendants concerned in them,
M. MOUNIER: Yes, they have, Mr, President.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.
(A recess was taken from 1250 to 1400 hours) Official transcript of the International
M. QUARTRE: Mr. President, your Honors, I have the honor today to bring to a close the presentation of the French prosecution by bringing together the charges that weigh against the Defendants Wilhelm Keitel and Alfred Jodl. Before going into my statement. I shall ask the Tribunal for the authorization to present a few observations. First of all, to spare the time of the Tribunal, we have joined together the two defendants in the same brief. Their activities were so common, so closely linked, that in separating them one would risk making tedious repetitions and for the same reason, I am condensing as far as possible what I have to say.
This expose' includes three parts. In an introduction, I have endeavored to situate the two defendants in the framework of their activities. The first part following this is devoted to the preparation of the plans of aggression, and will be merely mentioned. It has already been sufficiently expounded so that it need not be brought up again. responsibility of the accused in the crimes committed in the course of the war. In this connection, I shall not make use of all the documents, the testimonies and interrogatories which concern these two defendants. If their guilt is a function of the repetition of their crimes, it is characterized above all by the criminal intent which preceded over their execution. This criminal intent is particularly brought out by a few documents which I have selected. I shall ask the Tribunal's permission to make a few quotations from these. Deliberately they will be as brief as possible. section number which you will find read in the margins of the copy which you have before you. I shall thereupon indicate the original, number. If the document has already been submitted, I shall furnish the date at which it was submitted and the number under which this document was submitted, will.
The unity which he had established between the Party and the State was, Reich, Hitler endeavored first of all to submit the German army to his sole as he thought, to reign over the Arny, the State, and the Party.
Thus only would the war machine be capable of fulfilling its function. The Party would give the impulse, the State would translate this into acts and the Army would impose it, in case of need, within the country as well as without. To achieve this aim, it was necessary first of all to impose a legislation subordinating in fact the whole military organization to the Furher. It was also necessary to proceed with the elimination of personalities that were too unyielding to submit to these measures. The execution of von Schleicher in 1934 and the disgrace of Blomberg in 1938 are two examples. It remained only to provide for their replacement by military chiefs whose conscience was sufficiently brought to ply the role of faithful executors. Keitel and Jodl were among these. Their personal convictions and the sudden fortune of their careers give proof of this. Questioned on the 3 August 1945, by Colonel Ecer of the Czechoslavakia Military Justice, the Defendant Keitel spoke thus of his relations with Hitler and the National Socialist Party.
This is document RF 1430, formerly RF 710. "Within myself I was a faithful supporter of Adolf Hitler and my political convictions were National Socialist. When the Fuehrer granted me his confidence, the personal contacts which I had with him caused me to evolve toward National Socialism. Today, still, I remain a convinced partisan of Adolf Hitler, which does not imply that I adhere to all the points of the program and of the policy of the Party." and of the Provinces, to explain to them the strategic position of Germany on the threshold of the fifth year of the war, Jodl declared this in his perorations. This is document FR 1431, L-172, submitted by the American prosecution 27 November 1945. "At this moment I should like to certify not with my lips but from the bottom of my heart, that our confidence and our faith in the Fuehrer are limitless." in 1931. Three years younger than him, Jodl, was merely made a Lt. Colonel in 1932. In spite of the opportunities presented by the campaigns of 1914 until 1918. These years had given him only a mediocre advancement. Those which led before them were going to bring them to the peak of honor and support. They saw at last their star rising at the same time that that of the new master of Germany was rising and immediately they were raised to official life.
high functions in the supreme echelons of the organization of the German armed forces. In enjoying a particular favor with the new master of Germany, he took all possible measures from the moment of accession of Hitler to power, to strengthen the influence of the Nazi ideology within the army. His activity in the Wehrmachtamt was particularly fruitful. This was a ministerial organization taking the place temporarily of the Ministry of War of the Reich and including among its powers the preparation and the coordination of plans connected with the German army. The tenure of the defendant in office, in this office, was all the more noteworthy by the fact that a deep reformed structure had st been effected. The Reichswehr of the professional soldiers gave way to the Wehrmacht, recruited by the obligatory military service. It was no longer enough to call the whole German youth to the flag; it was also necessary to clothe it and feed it and supply it with modern powerful weapons. This increase in the forces, these beginnings of a military economy of a policy of rearmament, are to a large extent the fruit of the efforts of the defendant, who at this moment enjoyed if not de jure at least de facto, enjoyed the prerogatives of a Minister of War. him commander in chief, he transferred the chief powers of the Ministry to the high command of the army and its chief, Keitel, became at the same time Chief of the Personal Staff of the Fuehrer. The defendant was to keep these functions until the moment of capitulation of the German armies. As chief of the high command of the army, Keitel did not exercise the direct authority over each of the three armies, constituting the Wehrmacht, the Land Army, the Aviation, the Navy, which were directly under Hitler. Charged more particularly with coordinating the matters affecting these three armies, he was the liaison agent between Hi tier and these three armies, but he was more than this. His role was above all that of advisor. He centralized the information that reached him from the different services under his orders, and this includes reports from the staff of operations confided to Jodl, information coming from the office of Admiral Canaris, the reports from the economic department of the armed forces of General Thomas, the administrative, financial and juridical services. However personal and authoritative Hitler's methods of work have been, they did not exclude the regular and constant participation of Keitel in the acts of his master. It is he who was in a position to carry out the demands of his chief, to suggest, to prepare, or to modify his decisions.
Reich, as member of the Secret Cabinet Counsel and of the importance of their political character, it is easy to realize the scope of the role played by the defendant in all the domains, whether it has to do with the preparation of military plans, properly speaking, of the life of the German army, or its behavior, or the distribution of manpower, or the utilization of the economic resources of Germany. Chancellory, Keitel was present. He was present at the time when Hitler made capital decisions. He was present by his side on the marches into the countries to be annexed and when orders by Hitler had to be transmitted, he in turn would order developing of the ideas of his chief and bring to these orders his personal contribution.
In signing or countersigning Hitler's decrees, Keitel added nothing to the validity of these texts from the point of view of the positive law of the Third Reich but he thereby guaranteed to Hitler their utility for the Wehrmacht and their unscrupulous execution. It was in this particularly, and notably, that he engaged his responsibility. of the new regime and of its creator. His attitude, his orders, and his activity reveal that he was a general of political Aspiration, attached to Hitler, who showered him with favors. Assuming the direction of the general staff of operations in the high command of the army, he also took an active part, an active and important part in the elaboration and orders of his chief. hostilities, shared his every day life, provoked his decisions, elaborated them and assured their execution. This role as counsellor, Jodl fulfilled, although his theoretical competence was far from having the importance of that of Keitel, which does not prevent him from intervening in realms which went beyond the framework of pure operations and in which he likewise engaged his personal responsibility.
on the preparation and on the execution of plans of aggression. We shall not return to this point. In this matter our British colleague, Mr. Roberts, has perfectly brought out the role played by Wilhelm Keitel and Alfred Jodl and we shall consider more particularly their responsibility in the conduct of the war, properly speaking; and first of all, their responsibility in the matter of murder and ill treatment of civilians, of collective sanctions and the murder of hostages. by the German armies progressed, there appeared with them measures against the civilian population, in violation of the laws of war and of the law of nations. They extended these violations, they extended apparently most benign violations to the services, sanctions, to execution, the most inhuman executions and the most useless. countries of the West, one finds everywhere the same reaction, the same unscrupulous execution of the same directives. On the 16th September 1941, Keitel signed an order relative to the repression of Communist insurrectionary movements in the occupied territories. This is document 389-PS. If the Tribunal will permit me, I choose to read briefly from this document. Keitel's directives are the following: "In every case of insurrection against the German occupying power, without consideration for circumstances, of detail, every such case shall be attributed to a Communist initiative. To choke the uprising in the bud, the most severe measures shall be taken at the first occasion in order to assure the authority of the forces of occupation and to present an extension of such movements. Moreover, it must, not be forgotten that in the countries in question, the value of a human life is less than nothing and that effective intimidation can be achieved only an unaccustomed rigor. In reprisal for the death of a German soldier, the penalty of death of fifty to one..."
THE PRESIDENT: We have had this read already.
M. QUATRE: Yes, sir. I am sorry, Mr. President. On the 5 May 1942-turning more particularly toward Belgium and France -- Keitel ordered for these two countries seizures and executions of hostages. These were to be chosen among the Nationalists, the Democrats, and the Communists. This is document RF 1433, 1590-PS, the original of which is now in the hands of the prosecution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which will not fail to submit it in the course of its presentation. This order merely confirms previous directives sent in August and September 1942, orders of the commander-in-chief in France, General von Stuelpnagel, that had already as its object the execution of hostages. This is document RF 1434, 1539-PS, submitted 29 January, by the French prosecution under No. RF 294. of the German Army, to protect the German army from all violent attempts, Keitel did not hesitate to violate the stipulations of Articles 46 and 50 of the Hague Convention, which prohibited on the part of the occupying power the use of all means of constraint, of reprisals of a collective character and which, on the contrary, imposed respect for the lives of individuals; and these were not violations of an isolated character. In all the occupied countries the same acts are repeated. They respond well to the aim that the high command had imposed upon itself, not of that of assuring in this manner a certain attitude on the part of the population which should be of military interest. ambiguity. "It is herein advised that all military commanders are advised always to have at their disposal a certain number of hostages of different political tendencies. It is important that there should be among them leading and well-known persons; according to the place of the guilty, hostages of the corresponding groups are to be shot in case of an attempted violence." This setting up of a rule of terror was to find its whole development in the ordinance of the application of the decree "Nacht und Nebel", which was issued by Keitel on 12 December 1941. This is document RF 1436 which I submit today, document 669-PS.
If the Tribunal will allow me, I will read a few characterist lines indicating Keitel's intention.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we had it more than once already. I think we had it more than once already.
M. QUATRE: I excuse myself, Mr. President, and I shall go on. This is the original of the deportation to France, among other countries, which has made some heavy attributes. It is not necessary to insist. We know the treatment inflicted upon the women and the men, torn from their families, their homes, in contempt of all rights and laws and the atrocities committed upon them are present to all minds. 9 January 1946. That is an order of 26 May 1943, signed in his name, "Keitel," in paragraph 3, and provides that detailed investigations are to be made in given cases regarding the parents of Frenchmen who are fighting for the Russians; to find out if these parents reside in the occupied zones of France. If the investigation reveals that these relatives have given aid to facilitate their flight from France, severe measures are to be taken. of Jodl this time, sent to the commander-in-chief in Denmark, a telegram which is interesting from two points of view. It is document FR 1438, UK 56, already submitted on 31 January 1946, under No. RF. 301. The first paragraph authorizes the enrolment of Danish Nationals in the military formations of the occupying army, in SS formations. Aside from the fact that this is contrary to the respect and honor of individuals, it goes against the terms of the preamble of the Hague Convention, which stipulates that in cases not included in the regulatory provisions, the population and the belligerents remain under the safeguard of laws of humanity and the exigencies of public conscience. This attempt at Germnization ignored completely the exigencies of public conscience. deportation to Germany of the Jews of Denmark, it is the application of the general principle of deportation of Jewish populations which was to lead to their complete elimination.
The Tribunal is sufficiently informed on this point so it is unnecessary to insist upon it. and villages. Page 20 of my presentation. The policy of terrorism which the German armies had in France against the forces of the Resistance, against the FFI went beyond all measures and their anger was turned no longer against the resistance themselves but against the inhabitants of villages and towns suspected of having given asylum to these FFI, as having given them assistance; and I quote in this connection from a brochure which was put out by the high command of the army under date of 6 May 1944, bearing the name of the chief of the OKW, the signature of the Defendant Jodl. This is document FR 1439, formerly FR 665, submitted 31 January 1946, under No. RF 430. The paragraph 161 of this notice reads as follows: "The cleaning out of villages suspected of concealing bands necessitates experience. The Forces of the Security Service, SD, and the Secret Police of the countryside are to be used. The real aids of the bands are to be recognized and seized with the utmost energy. Collective measures against the population of entire villages, among which measures the burning of localities can be ordered only in exceptional cases and exclusively by division Commanders or chiefs of police and of SS." Page 21 of my presentation. But the Defendant Jodl, what he had prescribed as an exceptional measure, was in the Spring and in the Summar of 1944 to become a common rule. Actions of isolated character at the moment of the signing of this notice, they new became actions of great scope, ordered and carried through by units of the army, supported in violation of the law of nations by forces of the security service and the secret police of the countryside. elements of the Resistance, German officers and soldiers unscrupulously observed the orders given by the chief of the general staff of operations, and it was thus that the falling back of the German armies in France was measured by those cities and villages, henceforth indeed, which among others, bear the names of Oradour-Sur-Glane, Maille, Cerisay, Saint-Die, and Vassieuxen-Vercore.
most arbitrary arrests and reached the stage of tortures, massacre, generalized massacre of the inhabitants, men, women, old people, children, infants, to the pillaging and burning of these localities; no discrimination among the inhabitants, all, even the youngest children were "auxiliaries." Never have the necessities of war justified such measures, which constitute many violations of Article 46 and 50 of the Hague Convention. civilian workers and to the deportation of civilians for forced labor. The decree of appointment of Sauckel in the capacity of general, mandatory for the utilization of manpower, under date of 21 March, 1942, bears the signatures of Hitler, Lammers, Chief of the Reichschancellory and of the defendant Keitel. This is Document FR 1440 , 1666-PS, submitted on the 12 December 1945, under No. US 208 by the American prosecution.
force to the end of its utilization for the German war industry and particularly for the armament industry. There were to be submitted under this obligation all workers not employed in Germany, in the protectorates in the general government, and in all the occupied territories. This is a violation of Article 52 of the Hague Convention. have alluded to earlier, the Defendant Jodl, speaking of the tasks which were incumbent upon the populations of the territories occupied by Germany, declared in Document RF 1431, which I quoted some time ago, it states:
"In my opinion the time has come to take action without scruples rigorous and resolute measures in Denmark, in Holland, in France and in Belgium, in order to force millions of idle people to execute work on fortifications, which is more important than any other work. The necessary orders for this have already been given."
Sauckel does not express himself in any other way. Jodl, also, becomes the champion of this requisition of services to utilize for military ends profitable to Germany alone the potential labor of the Western occupied territories. The concern with the triumph of Germany, total war, for him too, comes before respect for international conventions on the usages of war. economic and artistic pillaging. I shall be extremely brief. I point out to the Tribunal three documents which have already been submitted to it. I simply refer to them, Document RF 1441, FA 1, submitted yesterday by my colleague of the economic section. This is document RF 1437-PS, submitted by the American prosecution under Number US 379 and finally RF 1433, submitted yesterday under number RF 1310. letter of five lines, addressed by Keitel to the Special Staff Rosenberg, Chief of the Einsatzstab. This is RF 1444, Document 148 PS, which reads as follows:
"Very Honored Minister:
"Having received your letter of the 20 of February, I inform you that I have charged the High Command of the Army to make an agreement in accord with your delegate and the necessary decisions for the work of the special commando services in the territory of these operations." from the beginning, by the most constant assistance of the Army and it is in this way that Keitel himself brought his personal contribution on the artistic looting of France and of the countries of the Nest. juridical justification. They did not take place by virtue of a law but as a simple guarantee for the future negotiations of peace. But these measures quickly degenerated into a generalized spoliation of the art treasures of all kinds possessed by these countries of the West, in violation of the stipulations of Articles 46, 47 and 56 of the Hague Convention, which forbids the confiscation of private property, pillaging andseizures of works of art and scientific works by the members of the occupying Army. concerns (page 28) the violations of conventions and laws of war relative to war prisoners. In this field, in particular, Keitel and Jodl have made themselves guilty of particularly unjustified measures, contrary to the laws of war and it is first of all, a violation of Article 6 of the Annex to the Hague Convention, which stipulates that work carried out by war prisoners shall not be excessive and shall have no connection with war operations. Keitel, as Chief of the OKW, forces to work, related to war operations, the Russian war prisoners interned in the Reich. This is proved by Document EC 194, submitted by the American Prosecution on 12 December, 1945, under Number US 214. In this text Keitel expresses himself thus:
"The Fuehrer has just ordered that even the work capacity of Russian war prisoners shall be broadly used for wholesale uses for the war industry."
these prisoners into the German war economy. This document, it is true, is in 1941 and concerns itself only with Russian war prisonersbut beginning 21 March, 1942, the use of all war prisoners for purposes of the German war industry, and particularly for the armament industry, is carried out, The decree appointing Sauckel to the post of General Plenipotentiary for Labor, for manpower, which has already been referred to provides, likewise, for the use of all war prisoners in the German armament industry. This is shown by Document 1666 PS, which reveals this violation of Articles 21, 26, 27, 31 and 33 of the Geneva Convention. thus, in his program of mobilization of a labor force, Document RF 1446, 016 PS, submitted 11 December, 1945 by the American Prosecution, under Number U.S. 208:
"The utilization of all war prisoners and the use of a gigantic number of new civilian workers from abroad, men and women, has become an undoubted necessity for the solving of the mobilization of the labor program in the course of this war." in a speech which he made at Posen, Sauckel succeeded in incorporating into the war economy of the Reich 1,658,000 war prisoners, as Document RF 1447 reveals. This is also Document 1739-PS, submitted by the French Prosecution under Number RF 10. The 1,658,000 war prisoners were distributed thus: 55,000 Belgians; 932,000 French; 45,000 British; 101,000 Yugoslavs; 33,000 Poles; 488,000 Russians; others 4,000, making a total of 1,658,000. contingent of war prisoners implies a perfect collusion between the labor services under Sauckel and Keitel, Chief of the OKW, responsible for this reservoir of manpower and responsible for its utilization. Convention were to be accompanied by measures inspired or authorized by the defendant of a character even more serious in the sense that they no longer violated the rights of prisoners of war but were susceptible of entailing physical assaults against persons, which went to the point of death and these violations bear on the following points:
30 January, 1946, which presents us with a report drawn up for the services of the High Command of the Army. It relates to the American and French Air Forces. The Staff of Operations of the Luftwaffe proposed this set-up, to obtain, through the presence of these imprisoned aviators, protection for the population of the interested cities against eventual attacks of the Anglo-American aviation. Jodl, expressed a favorable opinion, considering that there was no conflict with international law if one limited oneself to the setting up of new camps.
believe, like the defendant Jodl, that there is present no conflict with international law. But this measure has to do, above all, as the first lines of this document specify, this measure has to do first of all with the assuring of protection to the German urban population. The Allied war prisoners are but a means for warding off the eventual air attacks and to this end there is no hesitation in aggravating their condition and exposing them to the dangers of war. This is a grave violation of the obligation of security, which the Geneva Convention in Article 9 imposes upon the power which holds prisoners of war within its charge.
And Keitel annotates this document with only two words; "No objections." These words are followed with the initials of his name.
I now come to the measures taken against escaped prisoners. The character of these measures was to assume a particular gravity. This is what Document RF 1449 reveals to us, Document 1650-PS, submitted on the 16 of December, 1945 by the American Prosecution under Number RF 246. The Tribunal is sufficiently informed as to this and it is not necessary, I think, for me to read it.
This document reveals to us the "Kugel Aktion" was thought up in order to put an end to the escapes of officers and non-commissioned officers. It had no aim but to confine to police organizations -- to hand over escaped prisoners to police officers through the handling of official orders and reports. But this special treatment, as you know, is no other than that of extermination. Yet, in the terms of Article 47 of the Geneva Convention, only disciplinary penalties, in this case arrests, can be inflicted by the authority upon escaped prisoners of war. Keitel did not hesitate to abandon these means for more radical ones.
DR. NELTE (Counsel for Defendant Keitel): The French Prosecutor is about to refer to a document which is in the document book under RF 711 and has been presented to the Court. This document is marked as a summary of an interrogation of the German General Westhoff and it is an especially hard reproach against the defendant Keitel, that is to say, it is about the execution of British R.A.F. officers, who had escaped from the Camp of Sagan.
reasons: statements of General Westhoff.
Second, the report has not been signed by the interrogator. It is not signed at all but has only the remark of the translator. author of this report. Westhoff has been questioned personally. Nurnberg. General Westhoff. is marked as a summary of an interrogation, can be used as proof,
THE PRESIDENT: Where shall I find the document?
M. GUATRE: Mr. President: I should like to say I shall be in a position this evening to furnish the Tribunal with the minutes of the interrogation of General Westhoff, accompanied by an affidavit by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. I received this document at the last moment and I didn't introduce it into my document book but I shall be able this evening to produce this for the Tribunal
THE PRESIDENT: Well, what do you say to the various points that have been raised by Dr. Nelte?
M. QUATRE: Mr. President; I recognize perfectly the basis of the request by the Defense and, as I said a moment ago, I shall be in a position at the end of this session to produce before the Tribunal the complete minutes of the interrogation of General Westhoff, the complete minutes, accompanied by an affidavit by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. I received these minutes too late and for those reasons was not able to insert it in the document book,
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal considers that the document which you have submitted to us cannot be admitted. It is a mere resume. The Tribunal thinks, also, that it can only allow the interrogatory to be used if a copy of it is handed to the Defendants' Counsel and the witness who made the interrogatory is submitted to the Defendants' Counsel for cross-examination, if they wish to cross-examine him. Otherwise you must call General Westhoff and examine him orally. Is that clear? I will repeat it if you like.
The document you have submitted to us is rejected. You can either call General Westhoff as a witness, in which case, of course, he will be liable to cross-examination or you can put in the interrogatory and after you have supplied a copy of it to Defense Counsel, then General Westhoff, who made the interrogatory, will be liable to cross-examination by the Defense Counsel,
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Would the Tribunal allow me to intervene for one moment? been certified by myself, is a report of the United Nations War Crimes Commission, which I received from the Chairman, Lord Reith, and certified as such a report. It therefore, in my respectful submission, becomes admissible under Article 21 of the Charter.
It is not merely a transcript of the interrogation. That is the document to which my learned friend referred and that is available and can be procured quite shortly.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, I follow that point, but at the same time that does not altogether meet the situation. If it is true that General Westhoff is in Nurnberg at the present moment it would scarcely be fair that a document of that sort should be put in unless the person who made the statement or from whose interrogatory the statement was composed was submitted for cross-examination,
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With the greatest respect, my Lord, I should like the Tribunal to consider that point because the Tribunal has not got the document in front of it but it is a report to the United Nations War Crimes Commission, based on the interrogatory. It therefore, in my respectful submission, becomes admissible as a report within the actual words of Article 21 and therefore is a matter which the Tribunal shall, under the Charter, take judicial notice of.
THE PRESIDENT: Would your submission be that the right course -would be to take that report into consideration and leave it to the defendants if they wished it, to call General Westhoff?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That would be my submission - that is my submission because of the effect of Article 21 or the course which is contemplated in view of the special powers and special validity given to such reports by Article 21.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know whether the interrogation was made by the prosecution in Nurnberg?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am told that the interrogation was made in London, I did not know that General Westhoff was in Nurnberg, I will make inquiries on that point,
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, were you able to inform us whether or not the interrogation was made in Nurnberg or in London?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am told it was made in London,
THE PRESIDENT: Do you know where the witness is now?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I did not know he was in Nurnberg until your Lordship mentioned it. But I can easily verify that point.
DR. NELTE: Last week I received a letter from General Westhoff from the prison here in Nurnberg with answers to several questions. He was here last week,
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now.
(A recess was taken from 1520 to 1540),