Transcript for IMT: Trial of Major War Criminals

both to defendants' counsel and to the Tribunal too, that they should be informed at least the night before of the program which counsel proposes to adopt for the following day. It is true, as was said, that perhaps that has not been absolutely regularly carried out by the prosecutor on all occasions, but it has been done on quite a number of occasions within my recollection, and it is at any rate the most important practice which the Tribunal desires should be carried out, and they would be glad to know above all what you, Mr. Dubost, propose to address yourself to tomorrow, and the Tribunal would be very grateful to know how long the French prosecutors anticipate their case will take. They would like before you finish, or at the conclusion of your address this afternoon, to indicate to the Tribunal, and to the defendants' counsel, what the program for tomorrow is to be.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If your Honor please, if I could say one word in regard to the position of that document, because I had an opportunity during recess to consult my friend Mr. Dodd, and also my friend M. Dubost; it is that all PS documents, every one of a series of captured documents, their origin and the steps taken subsequent to the article, were verified on 22 November by Major Coogan, and were put in by my friend Colonel Storey. is delighted to elaborate any time convenient to the Tribunal, that all such documents being captured and verified in that way are admissible. I stress the word admissible, but the weight which the Tribunal will attach to any respective document is, or course, a matter at which the Tribunal would arrive from the contents of the document and the circumstances under which it came into being. That, I say, is the only reason I ventured to intervene at the moment because there might be some confusion between the general verification of the document as a captured document, which is done by Major Coogan as his service, and the individual certificate of translation, that is, of the correctness of the translation of the different documents, which appear at the end of each individual American document. The fact is that my friend, Mr. Dodd, and I were very anxious that it should be before the Tribunal, and we should be only too delighted to give to the Tribunal any further information which it desires.

THE PRESIDENT: Does what Major Coogan did apply to all the other series of documents put in?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It applies to PS and later to the letters RC and EC.

THE PRESIDENT: What about the L?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: What about L? I think it is L.

THE PRESIDENT:EC applies to that also?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: RC and EC.

THE PRESIDENT: Does the certificate then cover this particular sheet of paper, which is marked 5-C-2-PS, and has it no other identifying mark?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. The affidavit proves that that was a document captured from that series. I have not troubled the Tribunal with reading it, because on the whole we submit that it is now admissible as just an admission; of course, the matter of weight may vary.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I don't want the Tribunal to be under a misapprehension that every document was certified individually, but what is certified is a non-captured document. If a document comes from any of the sources in Article 21, then some one with authority from this Government certifies it as coming from one of these sources and that we do individually. But concerning captured documents, we don't make any individual certification; we depend on Major Coogan's affidavit.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but just a moment. Sir David, it is perhaps right to say in reference to this particular document, 532-PS, or the portion of it which has been produced, first of all, that the copy which was put before us didn't contain the marginal note, and that it is, therefore, wrong. We are in agreement with your submission that it has been certified, as you say, by Major Coogan's affidavit, which is admissible; but, of course, that has nothing to do with its weight. That is the point upon which Dr. Exner was addressing us.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: So I appreciate it, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: If a document be complied with, without a question it is admissible; but any document, of which we can take judicial notice, which has not been read for court by government or other prosecutors is not in evidence now because it has not been read by Mr. Dubost.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Your Honor, with that, of course, I don't desire anything further, *---* is the ruling of the Tribunal. The only part that I did want to stress w*---*t the PS as such is being verified and, of course, subject to reading it *---*t it could be put in.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. We quite understand that. French prosecutor and his staff because it's just been pointed out to me that this marginal note got here upon the translation and, therefore, M. Dubost, I tender to you my apology.

M. DUBOST: Mr. President, the Tribunal will certainly remember that this morning document 1553-PS was set aside, which includes in it bills of gas destined for Oranienburg and Auschwitz. I believe that, after the explanation given by Sir David, this document 1553-PS may now be admitted by the Tribunal inasmuch as its verification has been established.

THE PRESIDENT: Was it read, M, Dubost?

M. DUBOST: Yes, Mr. President, I was in the process of reading it this morning at number 27 in the second book of documents, but the Tribunal set it aside because the Tribunal demanded that I furnish an affidavit. The intervention of Sir David is in a sense such an affidavit, and I beg the Tribunal go forgive me in formulating this request of you, but may I ask you to accept the document which was refused this morning?

THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, it was a question of gas, wasn't it?

M. DUBOST: That's right.

THE PRESIDENT: There was one bill of lading and then there were a number of other bills of lading which were referred to.

M. DUBOST: And the whole constituted document 1553-PS. This document is included in the series covered by the affidavit, of which Sir David has spoken to you.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, if you attach importance to it, would it not be possible for you to give us the figures from these other bills of lading? I mean the amount of the gas.

M. DUBOST: Quite willingly, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Just in order that it may be upon the shorthand notes.

M. DUBOST:

14 February 1944 Gross weight: 882 kilos Net weight:

557 kilos 16 February 1944 Gross weight:

832 kilos Net weight:

555 kilos The first is addressed to Auschwitz and the second to Oranienburg.

13 March 1944 Gross weight: 896 kilos Net weight:

590 kilos to Gross weight:

598 kilos Gross weight:

832 kilos Net weight : 555 kilos Gross weight:

832 kilos Net weight : 555 kilos This appears to me to be all in document 1553-PS, and there is added thereto the statement by Echner and also the statement by the chief of the American service who collected these documents.

presentation of the crimes for which we reproached the defendants on the allied prisoners of war who were interned in Germany. Document 735-PS, page 68 of the document book, which we have placed before you some time ago under No. 371-RS, relates important meetings which brought together Kaltenbrunner, Ribbentrop and Goering, in the course of which were decided the dealing with air operations which constituted terroristic acts. It was decided in these meetings that lynching would be the best punishment in regard to all actions directed against civilian populations as to which the German Government attached a terroristic character. On page 68 it involves the proposals of Ribbentrop. We read in one of the three copies of the notes of the meetings that were held that day, in the first paragraph, 11th line:

"Contrary to the proposals of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who wanted to consider it as such, all terroristic attacks against the civilian population and consequently air attacks against cities were placed in this catagory. The proposals made by Ribbentrop were therefore in excess of what was accepted at the time of this meeting. The three lines which follow deserve the attention of the Tribunal.

Lynch law would be the means of settlement. There was, on the other hand, no question of having a judgment rendered by a tribunal or the turning over of the people to the police. In paragraph B, bottom of the page:

"One had to distinguish from the enemy airmen who were suspected of terroristic acts, and we should prepare for their admission in the airmen's camp at Oberursel, and if there are any suspicions, they should be turned over for special treatment by the SD." of this "special treatment" by the American prosecution. What is involved is purely and simply the extermination of allied airmen who had fallen in the hands of the German Army.

On page 69 the Tribunal may read, under No. 3, the enumeration of the acts which are to be considered as terroristic acts and as justifying lybching procedures.

"(A) Attacks were weapons against the civilian population as well as against isolated individuals or against gathering of civilians.

"(B) Shots against German aviators, jumping in a parachute from their aircraft when brought down.

"(C) Attacks were weapons against passenger trains, public transport; attacks were weapons against hospitals or hospital trains that are visibly equipped were a red cross."

Three lines below:

"If such acts should be established in the course of interrogations, the prisoners will have to be turned over to the SD." This document comes from the Fuehrer's headquarters. It was brought there on the 16th of June 1944, and it bears the number of the assistant chief of staff of the Wehrmacht.

THE PRESIDENT: I think that has all been read, M. Dubost. I think that document was all read before.

M. DUBOST: Mr. President, I had been told that it had not been read.

THE TRIBUNAL: I haven't verified it.

M. DUBOST: We place before the Tribunal Document 629-PS, under No, 372. This document concerns the preceding one that comes from the Fuehrer's Headquarters, dated 15 June 1944, and it reiterates the orders already cited; but it is signed by General Keitel, Marshal Keitel, whereas the preceding one was signed "K" and we could not verify who the author of this initial was: 730-PS, which was placed before you under No. 373, is likewise from the Fuehrer's headquarters, still dated 15 June 1944. It is addressed to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs through Mr. Ambassador Ritter. The Tribunal will find it on page 71 in the document book.

This document reproduces the instructions signed "Keitel" in the preceding document, and it is likewise signed by Keitel. We shall place it under No. 374, Document 733-PS, which concerns the treatment which is to be reserves to airmen falling into the hands of the German Amy. It is a telephone message. The call is from the Adjutant Marshal of the Reich, Captain Breuer.

D. NELTE (Counsel for Keitel): I assume, Mr. Prosecutor, that you have finished with the question of lynching. In the presentation of this case the words "Orders of Keitel" have been used. The prosecutor has not read those documents. I would be obliged if the prosecutor would produce a document which contains an order, which makes an order of the lynching us it has been claimed by the prosecution. The defendants Keitel and Jodl state and claim that such an order has never been given at these conferences concerning which documents have been produced, and that these documents have never become orders because that has been prohibited by other quarters.

THE PRESIDENT: The documents speak for themselves.

M. DUBOST: The Tribunal did not want to have the complete reading of these documents which are signed by Keitel. They are not orders, they are projects. That was emphasized when I submitted them to the Tribunal, but in regard to Keitel, page 80 of our Document Book, you will find dated 30 June 1944, with Keitel's visa, a note for a meeting. The purpose was the treatment of enemy terroristic aviators. Herewith, it has the project for written reply by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Reich, to the Chief of the OKW - project which is transmitted to the Operational Staff of the Wehrmacht.

Second, and skipping the sub-paragraph: "The Marshal of the Reich. Approved the definition of the terroristic aviator communicated by the OKW as well as the procedure which is proposed therein. This document will be placed before you under No. 375. I did not put before the Tribunal a regular formal order but I brought three documents which, in my opinion, are equivalent to a formal order because with the visa of Keitel we have this note which is signed by him, which states: "The Marshal of the Reich. The definition of a terroristic airman communicated by the OKW as well as the procedure which is proposed." This document bears the visa of Keitel".

We shall now place under No. 376, a document L-154 which has already been placed before you by our American colleagues under No. USA 335. My colleague has read this text in extense. I will merely refer to three lines. That is the second paragraph under three. "It is not possible to take away from popular anger any aircraft flying low, who might be brought down." This is signed by Albert Hoffmann.

Under Deposit No. 376 we shall place document S-686, on page 82 of our document book. This is about the minutes of an interrogation held on 29 December 1945. This was M. Gruener, who was subordinate to M. Wagner, Gauleiter in the Duchy of Baden. In the last lines of this document, Page 82 of our document, Geuener states: #Wagner gives the order, the formal order, to bring down all prisoners taken from the Allied aviations or air forces who might be captured, and in this connection Gauleiter Wagner explained to us that Allied airmen caused great ravages on German territory;

that he therefore considered that he was acting - that there was involved inhuman warfare, and that under the circumstances any airmen captured should not be considered as prisoners of war and deserved no mercy".

It is really 84 at the top of the page, "He stated that Kreisleiters, if the occasion offered it, should not fail themselves to shoot the allied airmen who might be captured. As I have told you, Roehn was already assistant to Wagner but he did not speak. I can make it clear that General Hoffmann, who was the SS Leader of the police for the Southwest Region, was present when the order was given to us by Wagner to bring down allied airmen."

THE PRESIDENT: Where are you reading that?

M. DUBOST: Page 83, second paragraph. This witness, Hugo Gruener, confesses that he participated in the execution of allied airmen.

Going through Rheinweiler, six paragraph: "This took place in October 1944 or November 1944. As I went through Rheinweiler... I noticed that English or American airmen had been fished out of the Rhine River by soldiers. The four airmen were wearing khaki uniforms. They were bareheaded. They were of average height. He did not speak to them because he does not know the English language. The Wehrmacht refused to take them in." That is the third paragraph at the bottom of the page. I am reading: "I have stated to the gendarmes that I had received from Wagner the order to "execute any allied aviator taken prisoner. The gendarmes replied that it was the only thing that could be done. I then decided to execute the four allied prisoners and one of those gendarmes who was present suggested to me as a place of execution the banks of the Rhine."

The next page, page 84, paragraph 1. "Gruener describes the arrangements made by him to assassinate those airmen."

Second paragraph: "He confesses that he killed them with machine gun shots in the back".

"He gives the name of one of his accomplices 'Erich Meissner,' who was a Gestapo agent from Lorrach.

assassinated an airman at the time when he was getting out of a car and was on his way toward the Rhine. I read: "He murdered them by shotting a machine gun at each of them in the back, after which each prisoner was dragged by the feet and thrown into the Rhine River." This affidavit was received by the Interrogating Magistrate of Strassbourg. The document which we place before you has been signed by the Secretary of the Tribunal as a certified copy: therefore, the orders given by the leaders of the German Government were carried out by the German people.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, I see that it is five o'clock now, and perhaps you would be able to tell us what your program would be for tomorrow, for the assistance of defense counsel, and also what length you expect the French Prosecution to take.

M. DUBOST: Tomorrow we shall complete the presentation of the question of prisoners of war. We will summarily present to you documents which seem to us to be indispensable in spite of our hearing of witnesses in regard to the camps - only very few documents - but pplying to some of the defendants directly. Then we shall develop how the orders given by the loaders of the German Army led the subordinates to commit acts of terrorism and banditry in France towards the innocent population; towards also the patriots of the Resistance who were not treated as Franc-tiereur but really as common law criminals. We expect to complete tomorrow morning. In the afternoon, my colleague, M. Faure, could give the presentation of this last part of the French charges concerning crimes against human conditions or the human person.

THE PRESIDENT: Are you not able to give us any estimate of the length of the whole of the French Prosecution?

M. DUBOST: I believe that three days will be sufficient for M. Faure. The individual charges will be summarized in one-half day by our colleague M. Mounier, and that will be the end, Sir.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now.

(Whereupon at 1705 hours the Tribunal adjourned to reconvene the following day, Thursday, 31 January 1946, at 1000 hours).

Military Tribunal, in the matter of: The

THE MARSHAL OF THE TRIBUNAL: May it please the Court, I desire to announce that the Defendants, Kaltenbrunner and Seyss-Inquart, will be absent from this morning's session on account of illness.

M. DUBOST: Before finishing, gentlemen, I must read you a few more documents concerning war prisoners.

First of all, it will be a document, No. 166, which we present under No. RF-377, in your book of documents. It concerns a note summarizing an interview with the Reichsmarshal on the 15th and 16th of May, 1944. Page 8, No. 22 -- extract from page 8, No. 20. The Reichsmarshal wants to propose to the Fuehrer that American and British who fire on towns by chance, on civilian trains that are running or on soldiers hanging by their parachutes shall be immediately shot on the spot. The importance of this documentneed not be underscored. It shows the guilt of the defendant Goering in reprisals against Allied military aviators brought down in Germany.

THE PRESIDENT: What page?

M. DUBOST: Page 88. Mecklenburg arrived at Klink with their crews intact, fifteen men all told. All were shot on the pretext of attempting to escape. The documents which we present to you on page 88 and which we submit under No. 378 relate to this murder. They were found in the files of the headquarters of the Eleventh Aerial Division and they give details as to the fact that nine members of the crew were handed over to the local police.

Paragraph before the last, third line. They were made prisoners and handed over to the protection police in the Warren Service. Lieutenants Helton and Ludka were handed over on the 21st of June by the protection police to the SS Untersturmfuehrer and police commissar of the Criminal Police Stempel of the Security Police in Fuerstenberg (Mecklenburg).Last paragraph.

These seven prisoners were shot on the way while attempting to escape.

Last line of the page. Lieutenants Helton and Ludka are also supposed to have been shot on the same day, while attempting to escape.

Regarding the same Liberator, page 19: "Subject, Fall of the Liberator. "On 21 Jane 1944 at 11:30 A.M." -- this is the third paragraph -- "seven of them brought down or shot while attempting to escape."

Now, under No. RF-379, we submit F-553, which the Tribunal will find on page 101 of the Document Book. This document concerns the internment in concentration camps and extermination camps of war prisoners. Among the escaped prisoners a discrimination was made. If these were privates and non-commissioned officers who refused to work, they were generally sent to the camp and punished in conformity with Articles 47 and following of the Geneva Convention. If they were officers or non-commissioned officers - this is a commentary I am making on the document; I shall read it -- On the other hand, if it was a question of officers or non-commissioned officers having refused to work they were handed over to the police and in general murdered without trial.

One understands the aim of this discrimination. Those of the French commissioned officers who in spite of the pressure of the German authorities refused to work in the German war industry, had a very high idea of their patriotic duty. Their attempt to escape therefore created against them a kind of presumption of inadaptability to the Nazi order, and they had to be eliminated. the beginning of 1944, and the responsibility of Keitel is unquestionably involved in this question of extermination which he approved if he did not specifically order. of General Berard, President of the French Delegation, with the German Armistice Commission, addressed to the German General, Vogl, the President of the German Armistice Commission. Its subject is information reaching France concerning the extermination of escapted prisoners.

First paragraph, fourth line: This note takes notice of a German organization independent of the Wehrmacht under whose authority the escaped prisoners fall. This letter was addressed on the 19th of April. This note was addressed on the 29th of April, 1944. Page 102.

"Captain Lussus, declares General Berard to the German Armistice Commission of Oflag, 10-C, and Lieutenant Girot of the same Oflag who had made an attempt to escape on 27 April 1944, were recaptured in the immediate vicinity by the camp guard. On 23 June 1944 the chief of the officers of Oflag 10-C received two funeral urns containing the ashes of these two officers. No details could be given to this French officer as to the causes of the death of Captain Lussus and of Lieutenant Girot. General Berard pointed out at the same time to the German Armistice Commission that the note -- which the Tribunal will find on page 104 -had been communicated to Oflag 10-C to the French officer responsible for his comrades at Oflag 10-C "You will bring to the attention of your comrades the fact that there exist for the control of people moving about illicitly a German organization which extends its activity over a region in state of war reaching from Poland to the Spanish frontier. Each war prisoner who escapes and is recaptured and finds himself in possession of civilian objects, or false identification cards and photographs, falls under the provision and authority of this organization. What becomes of him, I cannot tell you. Warn your comrades that this is a particularly serious question." urns of the escaped officers, handed to the French officer of the camp. under which escaped officers were reprised.

THE PRESIDENT: Was there any answer to this complaint? What you have just been reading, as I understand it, is a complaint made by the French General, Girot, to the German head of the Armistice Commission, is that right?

M. DUBOST: Mr. President, I don't know if there was an answer. What I know is that the Archives were in part saved and in part destroyed.

THE PRESIDENT: The Archives were --

M. DUBOST: If we had an answer we would have then in the Vichy Archives, for the documents we present now are the documents of the German Archives of the German Armistice Commission.

As to the French Archives, I don't know what has become of them. In any case it is possible they may have disappeared through acts of war.

Will the Tribunal forgive me? I was bringing to its attention that my Soviet colleagues would expound the conditions under which the repression of escapes was carried out at the camp of Sougan.

We submit under No. 380, Documents 672-F, which the Tribunal will find on page 115 in its Document Book. This is a report from the Service of War Prisoners and Deportees, dated 9 January 1946, which relates to the deportation to Buchenwald of twenty French war prisoners. This report must be considered as an authentic document, as well as the reports of war prisoners which are annexed thereto. At page 115, the Tribunal may read the report of Claude Petit, former chief confidence man in Stalag 6-G. In September, 1943 and French war prisoners transformed into workers, it is to be understood, being deprived of all spiritual assistance, having no priests among them, Lieutenant Piard, chief aumonier of Stalag 6-G, after having spoken with the aumonier of the war prisoners of the Rodhain, decided to transform six war prisoner priests as volunteers to carry out their ministerial functions among the French civilians.

I quote only three lines of the following paragraph; the first:

"This transformation of priests, difficult to execute, since the Gestapo did not authorize the presence of aumoniers among civilian workers, these priests and a few scouts organized on the one hand a scout group, on the other hand a group of Catholic Action." On page 157, paragraph 3: "From the beginning of 1944 the priests felt themselves watched by the Gestapo in their various activities." were almost simultaneously arrested and led to the prison of Brauweiler, near Cologne.

, first and second paragraphs:

"The same happened to the scouts."

I quote:

"Against this flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention, I took numerous steps and made numerous protests, in order that the prisoners of war arrested by the Gestapo might be handed over to the German authorities.

I likewise asked to know the reason for their arrest."

Fifth paragraph:

"By reason of the rapid advance of the Allies who were approaching, all prisoners of Brauweiler were taken to Poland."

(Dr. Stahmer, Counsel for Defendant Goering, approached the lectern.)

Mr. President, before allowing the Defense Counsel to interrupt me, allow me to finish the reading of this document. German military authorities took steps in order that the fate of these prisoners be pointed out to them. The military authorities having no knowledge thereof, immediately undertook a correspondence with Buchenwald, a correspondence which remained without answer. And again, at the beginning of March, Major Bramkamp, chief of the Abwehr group was to go personally to Buchenwald. disappeared. Souche, page 624, who in paragraph 3 writes :

"Certain war prisoners transformed into workers and French civilian workers had organized in Cologne a group of Catholic Action under the direction of the transformed war prisoners who were priests, Pannier and Cleton."

"The arrests began by the members of the Catholic Action and the accusations -

THE PRESIDENT: I do not know what Dr. Stahmer's objection is.

DR. STAHMER (Counsel for Defendant Goering): That we are not in a position to follow the expose. First of all, the translation is not very good. Some phrases -- sentences -- are left out. Especially, wrong numbers are mentioned. For instance, 612 has been mentioned. I have it here. It is quite a different document. We have not the document books and we can't follow the number of the page. It is not only myself, but also my colleagues who complain that they are not in a position to follow the proceedings under these circumstances.

THE PRESIDENT: May I see your document?

(Handed up to the Bench)

DR. STAHMER: This number was just mentioned and is confirmed by the other gentlemen.

THE PRESIDENT: The document from which Monsieur Dubost was reading was 672. The document you have got there is a different number.

DR. STAHMER: But this number was given us over the microphone and it was only I but the other gentlemen next to me -- quite independently -- who heard the same number. And it is not only this number, but all through, the numbers have been mentioned incorrectly.

Another difficulty is that we don't have the document bock, and the number of the page doesn't mean anything to us. We don't have the document book.

THE PRESIDENT: Monsieur Dubost, I think the trouble really arises from the fact that you give the numbers too fast and the numbers are very often wrongly translated, not only into German but sometimes into English. It is very difficult for the interpreters to pick up all these numbers. First of all, you are giving the number of the document, then the number of the exhibit, then the page of the document book -- and that means that the interpreters have got to translate that many numbers spoken very quickly. and as I understand it, they haven't got the document book in the same shape we have. It is the only way we can follow. But we have them now in this particular document book by page, and therefore it is absolutely essential that you go slowly.

M. DUBOST: Mr. President, the documents have all been handed to the Defense. All the documents have been presented to the Defense.

THE PRESIDENT: Are you telling us that document books have been handed to the Defense in the same shape they are handed to us, let us say, with pages on them? Speaking for myself, that is the only way I am able to follow the document. You mentioned page 115 and that does show me where the document is. If I haven't got that page, I shouldn't be able to find the document.

M. DUBOST: Mr. President, I announced at the same time RF-380, which is the number of the document.

The 672 which is the number classification. All our documents bear a classification letter 672-F. On the other hand, it was not possible to hand to the Defense a document book paginated like the one of the Tribunal, for it is not in the same text that this book is submitted.

It is in German and the page is not in the same place. There is not absolute identify of pagination to constitute a German Document Book. We can't -

THE PRESIDENT: I am telling you the difficulties under which the Defendants' Counsel are working, and if we had simply a number of documents without the pagination we should be under a similar difficulty. And it is a very great difficulty. Therefore you must go very slowly in giving the identification of the document.

M. DUBOST: I will conform to the wishes of the Tribunal.

Mr. President -

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the document being read was Document 672.

DR. STAHMER: I cannot find this number in the document I have at my disposal. We have 673 and all the rest is loose-leaf. We had 672, but we don't have 673. I beg your pardon -- 673 we have, but I haven't been able to find 672 so far. So far we have not been able to find the document. It thereby makes it very difficult for us to follow the Prosecution, because it takes us so much time to find the number which has been mentioned.

THE PRESIDENT: I can understand the difficulty. Will you continue, Mr. Dubust, and do as I say, going very slowly so as to give the Defendants' Counsel, as far as possible, the opportunity to find the document. And I think that you ought to do something satisfactory, if possible, to make it possible for them to find that document -- by pagination or some other letters. An index, for instance, gives the ardor in which the documents are set out.

M. DUBOST: Three days ago two document books in French, paginated like the books that the Tribunal has before it, were handed to the Defense. We were only able to hand two to them, for reasons of a technical nature. At the same time, we handed to the Defense a sufficient number of documents in German to enable each defending counsel to have his file in German. Will the Tribunal ask me to bring together the pages of the French document which we submit to the Defense with the pages of the document book? Whereas the Defense can do it and had time to do it. Two days ago the document books were handed to the Germans. They had the possibility of collating the French texts with the German texts, to make sure that our translations were correct and to prepare themselves for the sessions.