remember such expressions by Funk. I do know and I remember distinctly that we spoke about the occupied territories repeatedly; also about the later development in Europe which was to result from the collaboration. We spoke about the procurement of workers and that Funk fundamentally had a different viewpoint than the actualities were and that he was not in agreement with what was being done. I can only repeat this and if you ask me here as a witness, I can only say what I know.
Q Did you go over all of your questions and answers with Dr. Sauter before you took the stand? You knew what you were going to be asked when you came here, didn't you?
A Her, Dr. Sauter told me the viewpoints and the phases about which he would question me and what would interest him.
MR. DODD: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any other members of the prosecution wish to cross examine? Dr. Sauter, do you want to re-examine?
DR. SAUTER: No.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
(The witness retired)
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, there are a few interrogatories missing. One has arrived and has been translated. I would like to put the request that at a future time, perhaps in connection with the case Schirach, I may then read these interrogatories. And furthermore, Mr. President, I would like to give a few general statements to the Court. I have rend extracts from various documents and I have requested and I would like to ask that all of them be accepted as evidence and I would like to repeat this request; thus, my case Funk has been terminated, and may I express another request at this moment; namely, that during the next few days, the accused von Schirach may be excused from participating in the sessions in Court so he may prepare his case. During his absence, I will represent his interests or, when I am not here, my colleague, Dr. Nelte. Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is appearing for the defendant Schirach?
DR. SAUTER: I am, sir; and if I cannot be present, then Dr. Nelte will be here. One of us will always be in Court and will take care of his interests.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well, Dr. Sauter. Now the Tribunal will adjourn for ten minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, there was a document which you didn't refer to. I think it was an affidavit of a witness called Kallus. Were you offering that in evidence? It was an interrogation of Heinz Karl Kallus.
DR. SAUTER: The interrogatory referred to by the President has already been received and at the time it is in the process of translation. I shall submit it as soon as the translation has been received by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have a translation into English.
DR. SAUTER: I believe, Mr. President, that what you havehere is an affidavit by Kallus, and in addition there is still an interrogatory which is in process of translation and which I will submit later.
THE PRESIDENT: This takes the form of an interrogatory, questions and answers, what I have in my hand. I am only asking whether you want to offer it.
DR. SAUTER: Then I don't know. Yes, I offered it in evidence. I requested that judicial notice be taken of it.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. You gave it a number then, did you? What number will it be?
DR. SAUTER: Exhibit Funk No. 5.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Now, Dr. Kranzbuehler.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER (Counsel for the defendant Doenitz): Mr. President, first I would like to ask permission to keep a secretary, in addition to my assistant, in the courtroom, in order the facilitate the submission of documents. of documents, and I shall use the document book of the Prosecution and the document books which I am going to submit myself. These document books consist of four volumes. The table of contents is in Volume I and in Volume 3. tion, USA No. 12, I should like to correct an error in translation which may be of significance. It says there, in the German text, under "1939", "Konter-Admiral, Befehlshaber der Unterseeboote", and that in the English text has been translated by "Commander-in-Chief". The correct translation should be "Flag Officer of U-Boats". That point is of importance to the fact that Admiral Doenitz, until his appointment to Commander-in-Chief of the Navy in 1943, was not a member of the group which the Prosecution considers criminal.
GB-190. That is the chart which the Prosecution has submitted, a naval chart. This is the chart. It shows the position of the German submarines to the west of England on 1 September 1939, and the Prosecution uses that chart as proof of the question of aggressive war. to have started earlier from their home bases. The first document which I offer as Doenitz 1, is to prove, first, that the positions of German U-Boats stated by the Prosecution were tension measures which were taken by every nation in Europe, and that they in no way represented preparatory measures for an aggressive war against England, because such a war was not planned.
I read fromthe document, Document Book No. 1. It is an excerpt from the War Diary of the Naval War Command of September 1939, and I read the entry of 15.8:
"Prepared(for Case Weiss) the following measures:"
THE PRESIDENT: What page?
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Page 1 of the document book, Volume 1.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: "15.8. Prepared (for case Weiss) the following measures:
"From 15.8. Spee and all Atlantic submarines ready to sail.
"From 22.8. Transport Westerwald ready to sail.
"From 25.8. Deutschland ready to sail."
And then we find the array of these ships:
"21.8. Report B service about tension measures French fleet.
"23.8. Report B service: Continuation of French tension measures of fleet to 3rd grade. English and French blockade measures off ports.
"25.8. B Service reports: German and Italian steamers are watched and reported through France."
And then the directive:
"31.8. Arrival Order I of OKW for waging the war: Forceful solution in the East, attack against Poland 1 September, 0445 o'clock. At West responsibility for starting hostilities unequivocally to be left to England and France. Respect strictly neutrality of Holland, Belgium, Luxemburg, Switzerland. No hostile actions or such that could be interpreted as hostile. Luftwaffe only in defense.
"In case of opening of hostilities by Western powers: Defense only at the same time sparing of forces., Reserve beginning of attack-activities. The army holds the 'Westwall'. Naval commercial war with centre of gravity against England. To augment the effect one may count on declaration of zones of danger. Prepare these and present them. The Baltic to be safeguarded against enemy invasion."
The next document, Doenitz No. 2, will prove that the British submarines were active before the start of the war and right at the beginning of it. It is on page 2 of the Document Book. May I only point out that on the 1st of September, 1939, already, electro-motor noises were heard at WANGEROOGE. On the 4th of September, several reports arrived concerning English submarines seen in Heligoland Bay. participating in the planning of the attack against Norway. That is the document GB-83. The Prosecution has submitted it as proof of the fact that the Admiral played a big role in the occupation of Norway. I shall refer to this document later in detail, in the course of examining the witnesses. But I should like to clarify a few facts now. On the document -- and I submit it in the original to the Tribunal -- there is a stamp which clarifies when the document was received. bases had nothing to do with the question of aggressive war, as far as Commander Doenitz of Submarines was concerned.
I submitted the documents, Doenitz 3 and Doenitz 4. They are on page 3 and 5 of the Document Book. Doenitz 3 is a war diary of the Chief of Submarines, of the 3rd of November, 1939, and I read from the second paragraph:
"At the same time Naval War Command reports that there are possibilities for the establishment of a 'Base North' which seem to be very promising. In my opinion the immediate beginning of all possible efforts to arrive at a clear judgment of the existing possibilities is of the greatest importance." such a base, which are identical with the statements in Document 83.
In the case of this "Base North", as one can see from Document Doenitz 4, a part of Murmansk is considered, and it is known that these considerations were in full accord with the Soviet Union. continuously made in every naval command -
THE PRESIDENT: You are going a little bit fast over these documents and I am not quite sure that I am following what use you are making of them. This base mentioned in the report is Murmansk?
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Yes, Murmansk.
And I want to use it as proof, Mr. President, that such considerations and thoughts about bases have nothing to do with the questions as to whether one wants to wage aggressive war in the country where these bases are considered. The considerations about Murmansk were taken in full accord with the Soviet Union, and in the same manner Admiral Doenitz considered bases in Norway. That is the subject of my proof.
THE PRESIDENT: But the fact that Murmansk was suggested as a base, to be taken with the consent of the Soviet Union -- if it was the case -- doesn't have any relevance, does it, to taking a base in Norway without the consent of Norway.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Mr. President, the relevance seems to me to exist, because Admiral Doenitz as Commander of the U-Boats in both cases only received the order to state his opinion about bases in a certain country, and that just as in the case of Murmansk, also Norweg and Bruntheim, he could not have any judgment in the matter.
COLONEL SMIRNOV (of the Russian Prosecution): Document No. 3, the one being referred to by the Defense Counsel for Doenitz, states something about northern bases, but nothing is mentioned in this document about the plans of the Soviet Union, and to discuss here certain plans of tie Soviet Union, in my opinion, is absolutely incorrect, since there were no plans of the Soviet Union; there were no plans for the development of northern bases.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: If the representative of the Soviet Union has any doubts that that base was considered in full accord with the Soviet Union, there I shall prove that by calling a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: But the document doesn't say anything about it.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: The document says nothing about it, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal doesn't think you ought to make statements of that sort without evidence and at the moment you are dealing with a document that doesn't contain any evidence of the fact.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Mr. President, may I read the document, Doenitz No. 4?
THE PRESIDENT: It is Doenitz 3, isn't it?
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: I arrived already at Doenitz 4. I had read from Doenitz 3. I will now read from Doenitz 4:
"17.11.39. F.O. Submarines receives orders from Naval War Command concerning trying out Base North. The Naval War Command considers the trying out of the bases by 'U 36' due to sail within the next days highly desirable. Supply goods for banker 'Phoenizia' in Murmansk leaving with fishing steamer to Murmansk on the 22nd of November." only in accord with the Soviet Union and happened in accord with the Soviet Union. Furthermore, I want to show that -
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute.
Dr. Kranzbuehler, the Tribunal thinks you oughtn't to make these observations on these documents which really don't support what you are saying. Document No. 3, for instance, doesn't bear any such interpretation, because it refers to attacks which it was suggested should be made against ships coming From Russian ports, in paragraph 2. And equally the other document you referred to, Doenitz 4, on page 5, doesn't bear the interpretation which you are putting upon it.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Mr. President, I am afraid that the contents of both documents have been presented too quickly by me. For anyone who know such war diaries, many things are easily understood which are otherwise not so easy to understand. for the establishment of a base north exist. These possibilities can only be political possibilities, because one can only establish a base in a country if that country agrees. that that base will be tried out with a supply ship, a fishing steamer, and a "U"-boat. That show in my opinion convincingly -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) The question I was raising was on the statement by you that the Soviet Union had agreed, and these documents do not bear out any such statement.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: I mean that from the document Doenitz 4, that can be clearly seen. It is not possible.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Right here I must say I protest against the interpretations and unbased statements. I certainly am against misrepresentation of the documents, their weight, and the manner in which counsel is misinterpreting these from his very first steps in defense. I do not belong among the number of magicians, and I do not like to disguise things. I cannot suppose what kind of deductions will be made, deductions out of one or another document. I am a member of the legal profession, and I am accustomed to operating with legal documents the way they are. I am accustomed to operating with the contents of the document the way the contents are expressed. to the defense counsel the absolute impossibility of drawing such conclusions as he is attempting to make. I would like to ask that the defense counsel be forwarned so that he would limit himself only to the correct interpretation of the documents, and not misinterpretations.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Your Honor, I would be grateful if the Tribunal would consider a general point of procedure.
We have several objections to a considerable number of Dr. Kranzbuehler's documents. I have got out a short list grouping as far as is possible our objections, which I can hand to the Tribunal, and, of course, to Dr. Kranzbuehler now. It is a matter for consideration by the Tribunal whether it would be useful to see that list before the Tribunal adjourns tonight, and maybe here tender certain observations of Dr. Kranzbuehler upon them. Then here the Tribunal might be able to give a decision with regard to certain of the documents before sitting again tomorrow, and thereby save some time. the most profitable procedure under the circumstances.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you suggesting that at a certain point of time we should adjourn for the consideration of your list, and then hear Dr. Kranzbuehler on it?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what you suggest?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, sir. I was going to submit my list to the Tribunal and explain it, and then the Tribunal could hear Dr. Kranzbuehler upon it, and adjourn at whatever time it is suitable.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: May I make a statement in that regard?
THE PRESIDENT: You may.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: I do not agree with that proceeding, Mr.
President. For this Tribunal, as an attorney, I have done very little so far; but I am of the opinion that now I have to start and that I have to be granted permission to submit my documents in that order in which I intend to do it; and consider it correct for my job of defense. sentation of the prosecution I had said that I should like to speak about the relevancy of the documents presented by the prosecution. I believe that comparison shows that I cannot be expected to submit to this change of situation. mit them, and to a further extent that I thought necessary so far. But I ask the Tribunal to decide that I should submit my documents now, and that the prosecution should be limited to make their objections after my documents have been submitted individually.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The inconvenience of that course, My Lord, is the I shall then be interrupting Dr. Kranzbuehler every two or three documents, and making a specific objection to an individual document, which will take a great deal of time. I thought it would be more convenient if I indicated to the Tribunal my objections to the documents in the usual way by classes, then to make individual ones. most convenient for then.
The last thing I want is to interfere with Dr. Kranzbuehler's presentation but, on the ether hand, the method that he suggests will mean individual objections, because, of course, an objection is useless if it is put in after Dr. Kranzbuehler has developed the document. Or, if it is not useless, it is at any rate of very much loss weight.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kranzbuehler, supposing that Sir David Fyfe presents his objections to the documents now, whether in groups or in whatever way he elects, and you then answer him individually upon each document, pointing out the relevance in your view of each document; how does it harm you that the Tribunal will then consider your arguments and will rule upon them, and then you will know What documents the Tribunal have ruled cut, and you can then refer to any of the other documents in any way you please?
secution's having to get up and interrupt, put on the earphones, and take the time for an individual objection to each document to which they wish to object as it turns up. I cannot see that it can interfere with you in the least.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Mr. President, I have no objection against the prosecution's stating their objections new. I only wish to avoid my answering each individual objection. If I can be permitted to take my position when each individual document comes up, then I have no objection against the prosecution's stating its objections now.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal would like you to state now your objections to these documents. They will then allow Dr. Kranzbuehler to proceed with his discussion of the documents, answering your argument as to the admissibility of each document that you object to when he comes to it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If your Lordship please.
Your Lordship, I am afraid that I have only the Prosecution's objections in English, but it may help those of the Tribunal who do net understand English to have the numbers, at any rate, in front of them. have no probitive value. These are D-53. My Lord, the "D" in this case stands for Doenitz document book. 53, page 99, and D-49 pages 130 and 131; B-51 and D-69. war camp, purporting to be signed by 67 U-boat commanders and in purely general terms. The Prosecution submit that that is not helpful, either from its form or from its material. general terms and contains no indication of the moral or legal basis for the opinion expressed.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute, Sir David. 130? I have not got a page 131. Is it an affidavit, or was it called an affidavit?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: "On the basis of the documents of the Navy Court archives at-
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, maybe so.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it a sworn affidavit by somebody or other?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: I have got it now, yes. 131 comes somewhere before 130.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE. That is it. It is an affidavit by a former fleet judge, and Your Lordship sees that the description which the Prosecution give of it being in entirely general terms is, I submit, justified by the warding of the document, and it is difficult to see the basis which the learned opponent seems to profess for his statements.
bachter of 20 March 1945, and the Prosecution submit that the topic on which it is is irrelevant to the matters developed against the defendant Doenitz. November 1939, giving a list of armed British and French passenger ships.
documents D-5, D-9, D-10, D-12, D-13, D-29, D-48, D-60, D-74. to introduce by way of a footnote some of the documents which the Tribunal dealt with when considering the documents in the case of the defendant Raeder, with regard to which the Tribunal expressed its doubts of whether to allow them to be inserted. If you will remember, it was really with the Danish documents it was thought convenient to have them translated without a preliminary argument. defendant von Ribbentrop which is a correction in summary of documents which came into the German possession only after the speech of Ribbentrop was made. The Prosecution submits it is irrelevant. survivors in the years 1939 to 1941 inclusive.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the last statement, "and all apparently unsworn", is an error. It ought to be that D-13 is apparently unsworn. is quite true that a non-rescue order was issued by the defendant before the 27th of May, 1940, the really important period is around about the 17th of September, 1942. It seemed to the Prosecution unnecessary to delve into these details for the earlier Hay period. There is no real conflict that there were some rescues; the only point which the Prosecution is putting against the defendant is that he did issue an order, which the Prosecution proved, forbidding rescue when there was no danger.
THE PRESIDENT: What was the date you gave us of November, 1942?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the non-rescue order is before the 27th of May, 1940. We cannot give the exact date but we know from a reference in another order that it must have been before the 27th of May, 1940. And the order with regard to the destruction of the crews of merchant ships is the 17th of September, 1942; 17-9-42.
with the evidence of the Witness Heisig. The first purports to be an affidavit by a witness who speaks to the sort of statements the defendant Doenitz usually made and does not remember what was said on the particular occasion referred to by the witness Heisig; and it contains a good deal of argument. and with the exception of one sentence denying that the defendant spoke in the sense as alleged by Heisig, the remainder is either vague or irrelevant. allegations against the character of the witness Heisig. The Tribunal will remember that when the allegations were made against him, he was examining his character when he gave his evidence. treatment of Allied prisoners in German Naval prisoner of War camps, and on which subject no issue has been raised with this defendant. which the Prosecution submit had no relevance to those declared by the Germans. and French merchant marines and their respective navies, and the Prosecution submit that they are irrelevant as far as the British Navy is concerned, if they have any relevance cumulative of D-67. System and they are D-60, Pages 173 to 19 8, D-72, D-60, Pages 204 and 205 and Pages 219 to 225.
contraband control, what articles were contraband, declarations of different governments, and it is submitted that details of the contraband control are remote from the issues raised and entirely irrelevant. I do not think in the presentation against either of the Naval defendants the question of declarations of contraband was mentioned at all, certainly not in regard to the defend ant Doenitz; and in the submission of the Prosecution, it really introduces matters which are, I am sure, not helpful to the problems of this case. allegations against the Allies, but the general objection is set out in the first paragraph. These documents consist of various allegations against the Allies; they bear little or no relevance to the issues and if submitted might necessitate the Prosecution seeking the facilities to rebut the allegations; in which case a large amount of evidence in rebuttal might be entailed. up survivors; 367, Page 96 and 90.
31 and 32 deal with Allied attacks on German Air-Sea Rescue planes; 33 accuses a Soviet submarine of sinking a hospital shin. that the Allies shot up survivors. The question of Allied treatment of survivors is dealt with exhaustively by extract from the German Naval Diary and, My Lord, that we are not objecting to because there it is important not as evidence of the facts stated but as evidence of the matters that had an effect on the German Naval Command. For that purpose I am quite ready that Dr. Kranzbuehler should put them in and the Tribunal should consider them. And there is another document which deals with that point quite fully, and I am quite prepared to let that go in. national law by the Allies, and these are Numbers 19, page 24, the Goering exhibit; Numbers 7 and C-21, Page 91; 47, Pages 120, 121, which is also a newspaper report; 52, 60, Pages 152 and 208; D-75, 81, 82, 85 and 89. with regard to the order which we say sets out the destruction of survivors.
it is not that it was a reprisal, but the defense is that the order did not mean destruction but merely meant non-rescue. these matters become relevant at all.
And similarly with regard to the order for shooting commanders. The justification alleged for the order is set out in the order itself. I haven't heard any defendant develop any justification of that order in giving evidence before the Tribunal. The defendants so far have sail this order was given by Hitler and whether they approved of it or net they had to carry it out.
So that in my submission there isn't even the argument which is foreshadowed that breaches of the laws and usages of war can be in certain occasions properly committed as reprisals. It is not rut forward from that point of view; there is no attempt here as I understand the defense to show breaches for which reprisal is the answer. Therefore, the Prosecution submit that these documents are also irrelevant.
Again, I tried to out it as shortly as possible because I didn't want to occupy too much time, but I tried to correct them and describe those which seemed of greatest importance.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know why this matter of the admissibility of these documents hasn't been argued before. In the other cases with which we have dealt, the question of the admissibility has been dealt with by, first of all, your offering your criticisms and objections, and then the defendant's counsel being heard in reply. Then the Tribunal have ruled.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, as I understand the position, we did put in objections to the documents and Dr. Kranzbuehler suggested that he would very much prefer the documents being translated and the objections taken at a later stage. And I was certainly informed that the Tribunal agreed with that and ordered the documents to be translated.
THE PRESIDENT: That may be, for the purposes of translation. However, that doesn't mean that they are necessarily admissible. In most of the other cases, if not all, as you will remember, we have had an argument in open session in which you, or one other member of the prosecution, have made your objections, and then the defendant's counsel has replied to those objections.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, Dr. Kranzbuehler has just handed me this note.
The ruling is: "The Tribunal have ruled that the documents mentioned in your application may be translated, but that the question of their admissibility is to be decided later."
My Lord, I am afraid I am at fault there. It didn't occur to me, if I may be quite frank with the Tribunal, that I should have come before the beginning of the case of Doenitz to make this argument. I am very sorry, and I must accept responsibility. I assumed, without real justification, that that meant the argument of admissibility would come at the beginning, or at some convenient time in the case of Doenitz. I am very sorry, My Lord, and I can only express my regret.
My Lord, there is this excuse: We had three of the books on Saturday, and we only got the last one yesterday. Therefore, we really couldn't have done it before today, even if I had thought of it.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kranzbuehler, the Tribunal considers that in view of the large number of documents to which the prosecution object, it will be highly inconvenient to have you answering Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe's argument as you go through your documents, and therefore that you must answer now and deal with them in the way in which the other defendants have dealt with the objections to the admissibility of documents. Then the Tribunal will be able to consider the arguments that Sir David MaxwellFyfe has put forward and the arguments that you put forward in support of the documents.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Mr. President, I should like to emphasize that especially because of the many objections which the prosecution makes against the documents, I would have to submit all my documents, practically. That is because the trend of thought of my documents is in a certain order, and I cannot take out one document or another without disturbing that trend of thought. Therefore, I believe it would save time if the Tribunal would permit me to answer the objections when I come to the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: What difference could it make, assuming that the decision of the Tribunal is the some, whether you argue the matter now or whether you argue the matter afterwards? The documents which will remain, which will have been held to be admissible, will be the same. Therefore, there is no difference. I can't see any argument in favor of what you are saying.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Mr. President. My documentary material, in the same way as the documentary material of the prosecution, is organized in a certain way. If, of the 50 documents which are contained in my material, I have to discuss 40, or argue about 40, and withdraw some of them, then there are some more missing. Therefore, I should like to discuss all 50, in the order in which I intended to submit them to the Tribunal. relevancy of the document is not sufficient, then acceptance of the document will have to be refused, and the document withdrawn. However, it seems essential to me that I present my arguments in that order which I intend, and not in the order in which the prosecution has made its objections.
That would entirely disturb the trend of thought of my presentation, and, as defense counsel, I believe it is my task to present my trend of thought and not that of the prosecution, or of the objections.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if that is so, then you can present your argument upon the relevancy of the documents in the order in which they come.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: But you have to do it now.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: You can begin with D-5, which is the first, and then go on with D-9 and D-10; take them in the order in which they stand.
Dr. Kranzbuehler, the Tribunal doesn't see any reason why you should be dealt with in a different way from which the other defendants have been treated. Therefore, they think that you ought to be prepared to deal with these documents in the way in which they are grouped here. They would prefer that you should deal with them now, if you can deal with them in a reasonably short space of time. Then they will be able to determine the question of which documents shall be admitted during the adjournment. Otherwise, they will have to adjourn tomorrow for a consideration of that matter, which will still further hold up the trial.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Mr. President, of course I can state my position as to the groups which the prosecution has referred to. That is, I can make general statements, but I cannot refer to the individual documents with the care which is necessary, and the detail which is necessary. That is impossible immediately after I receive a list which I have not seen before. document now, that I be given an opportunity to do that tomorrow morning. groups, I can do that right now.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Dr. Kranzbuehler. The Tribunal will adjourn now, and we will hear you upon those documents at 9:30 tomorrow morning.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: In open session, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, yes.
(The Tribunal, adjourned until Wednesday, 8 May 1946, at 0930 hours.)