The correctness of Captain Witt's statements are confirmed by the next document, Doenitz 27.
It's the war diary, the log of the submarine. It contains the views of the commander of submarines. The dicisions disapproved of the fact that the Englishmen were not taken aboard. The fact that Admiral Doenitz attitude regarding rescues was not aiming at cruelties, but that it was based on military considerations, is shown in the following document, Doenitz ExhibitNo. 28. It is on page 53. He is consider rescuing of personnel and he comes to the conclusion that from military consideration such a rescue may have to be refrained from.
The following document, which is Doenitz No. 29, deals with the statement by witness Heisig. It is on page 54 and the following. To start with, it contains an affidavit from the Adjutant, Captain Lieutenant Furhmann, which deals with general thoughts, which was the basis of Admiral Doenitz' lectures and speaches. At the end he is emphasizing that never was he approached by young officers at the end of any lectures and speeches by Grand Admiral Doenitz, where they might have expressed any doubts regarding treatment of shipwrecked persons. Kress, who was present at the same lecture as Heisig, was, and he is saying that, neither literally nor by hinting, did Admiral Doenitz order the killing of survivors.
This, in turn, is confirmed by the statement of Lieutenant Steinhoff on page 59. commander at the time regarding fights against Jews becomes clear from the following document, which is Doenitz No. 30. It is on pages 60 and 61. There, again, appears no word regarding the killing of survivors. Incidentally it is a record of a conference with the Fuehrer on the 28th of September, 1942, where admiral Raeder and Admiral Doenitz were present. rescue ships as aims to be attained, if possible. In the same document there is contained a statement saying that they have the same significance as submarine traps. For that reason I have printed a document on page 63, which is standing war order No. 173, dated the 2nd of May, 1940; and in that order it is stated that "In accordance with the instructions of the British Admiralt: U-boat traps should be made use of whenever possible in convoys." respect paid to hospital ships is proved by the document Doenitz No. 34, which is in document book No.2, on page 67. It is the last standing order referring to hospital ships, dated August the 1st, 1944. It begins with the words: "Hospital ships must not be sunk."
My next document, Doenitz No. 35, is meant to show that the naval command staff, with reference to hospital ships, went beyond the rules of International Law. The entry of July 17, 1941, proves that the Soviet Government in turn has refused to adhere to the hospital ship agreement, referring in that connection to violations by Germany. According to paragraph 18 of that agreement, that would mean that the significance of that agreement would cease for all signatories. only example which we know of to the effect that a U-boat commander did in fact fire at means of rescue. This is the interrogation or examination of Captain Eck, which was carried out on the 21st of November, 1945, by order of this Tribunal.
That was ten days before he was shot; According to the wishes of the Tribunal, I shall only summarize. After sinking of the Greek steamer "Peleus", Eck tried to fire at the lifeboats by trying to sink them; and the reason which he quotes is that by this action he would do away with debris, wishing to avoid that the enemy air force might pick him up in that manner. He states that he had the Laconia order aboard, but that this order hadn't had the slightest influence upon his decision. In fact, he hadn't even thought of it. Moehle instructed him, but said nothing in that connection about the killing of rescued personnel; and Eck says he knows nothing about the example of U-3 86. At the end of Eck's examination he states that he expected that his actions would be approved of by Admiral Doenitz. Furthermore, during cross examination yesterday, the question was once more touched upon whether Admiral Doenitz-
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now for a few minutes -- only for a short time.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Very well.
(A recess was taken).
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kranzbuehler, the Tribunal, as you kno w, was going to deal with the applications for documents and witnesses, but if you could finish your documents in a short time, they would like to go on with that and get them finished, if you can.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Mr. President, I believe that even if I keep up this present speed, I shall need about one hour. I should like to ask you, therefore that I may continue Monday morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Wall, Dr. Kranzbuehler, if you think it will be anything like as long as that, of course we must put it off until Monday morning, but the Tribunal does hope that you won't take anything like so long as that, because going into detail on these documents doesn't really help the Tribunal. They have all got to be gone into again in great detail, both in your speech and in furthe consideration by the Tribunal.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: I shall confirm myself only to bringing out the connections, Mr. President, but in spite of that, it would be better if I did so Monday morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, yes. Then the Tribunal will now deal with the applications.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If your Lordship pleases, the first application is on behalf of the defendant von Schirach, who asks for one Hans Marsilek as a witness for cross examination. The Prosecution have already introduced an affidavit from this man, and they have no objection to his being called for cross examination. in respect of one Hoffmann. The Defense desires to administer interrogatories to Hoffmann in lieu of calling Hoffmann, who has already been allowed as a witness. There is no objection to that.
My Lord, the next matter is an application by Dr. Seidl on behalf of the defendant Hess, and it is a request for five documents relating to the GermanSoviet agreements in August and September 1939. There is also a request for the calling of Ambassador Gauss as a witness in connection with the above. But the position with regard to previous applications is somewhat lengthy, and without going into detail, I tell the Tribunal that this matter has already been before them on six occasions. I have the details if the Tribunal would like them.
THE PRESIDENT: No, because the Tribunal made an order, did they not, that these documents were to be translated?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: And that they would then be considered by the Tribunal.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is so, my Lord. The Tribunal made an order for them to be translated on the 25th of March, and, my Lord, if I may just remind your Lordship of the bare facts, on the 28th of March Fraulein Blank, the private secretary of the defendant von Ribbentrop, was asked about the agreement Your Lordship may remember that my friend General Rudenko objected, but the Tribunal ruled that the questions were admissible, and the witness said she knew of the existence of the secret pact, but gave no details.
Then, on the first of April, in the course of Dr. Seidl's cross examination of the defendant von Ribbentrop, the Gauss affidavit was read, and on the third of April, Dr. Seidl applied for Hilger and Weizacker to be called as witnesses on this point, and on the 15th of April Dr. Seidl applied for Ambassador Gauss to be called. when I said that in view of the Tribunal's previous ruling I could not contest the question of the agreement, but I objected to the witnesses. General Rudenko I think, stated that he had submitted written objections, and the Tribunal said they would consider the matter. that the affidavit of Dr. Gauss is already in evidence. My Lord, that is the first affidavit. The second affidavit of Dr. Gauss is notin evidence. With regard to the non-aggression pact between Germany and the Soviet Union, that is already in evidence. As to the secret supplementary protocol appended to the non-aggression pact between Germany and the Soviet Union, the substance is already in evidence. It was given in the Gauss affidavit. the 28th September 1939, and the secret supplementary protocol to that pact, The Prosecution submit that these documents have no relevance to the defense of the defendant Hess, and they cannot see any reason for their being wanted. If necessary, my Soviet colleague can deal further with the matter, but that is the general position. We also submit that the second affidavit of Ambassador Gauss is unnecessary in view of his previous affidavit, and without stating then again, I refer to and repeat my objections to witnesses to the discussions anterior to the conclusion of the agreement.
unnecessary to occupy the tine of the Tribunal regarding it.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal, as I have said, is going to consider this matter. They haven't yet had an opportunity to consider these documents, but I should like to ask you whether there is any reason why Ambassador Gauss should be called as a witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: None at all, myLord.
THE PRESIDENT: He has already stated the substance of these documents, as has the defendant Ribbentrop, and if the documents are now produced, supposing that the Tribunal took the view that they ought to be admitted, it would be entirely irrelevant to call Gauss as a witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FIFE: In my submission that is so, my Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Well , I think the Tribunal had better consider these documents, as they stated in their order they were going to do when the documents had been produced.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: If your Lordship pleases. he requests permission to read the affidavit of the witness Kalus. The permission was previously granted to the defendant Funk to submit an interrogatory to Kalus, which has been done, and the interrogatory has already been introduced in evidence. The affidavit now in question has been received and supplements the interrogatory, and the Prosecution havens objection. to call the witness Gassner as a witness, and he is desired to speak as to the Stuermer and the size of the circulation and the profits. The Prosecution submits that it is unnecessary to call a witness as to the form of the Stuermer after 1933. A representative number of copies of the newspaper are before the Tribunal and the form of the newspaper can be seen from them. given evidence as to the Stuermer's circulation, and it is respectfully submitted that the takings of the Stuermer and the use to which they were put are irrelevant.
Then, my Lord, the next application, on behalf of the defendant Sauckel, is for one Biedermann as a witness instead of a witness allowed previously who cannot be found.
The Prosecution have no objection to that, and they have no objection to the documents that are asked for, so with the approval of the Tribunal I shan't go through them in detail.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, we should like to know when you think the most appropriate time would be to hear the evidence on behalf of those defendants whose cases have already been presented, whether to hear it at the end of all the evidence or to hear it earlier?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFFE: My Lord, I should have thought that it was better to hear it earlier if the Tribunal could put aside a Saturday morning for it, or something of that kind, before the cases of the various defendants have got too far into the backgraound.
THE PRESIDENT: We will consider that and let you know.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFFE: If your Lordship pleases. Now, My Lord, the next application is in behalf of the defendant Seyss-Inquart and he asks for an interrogatory to be submitted to Dr. Stuckhardt (?) to supplement the testimony of the witness Lammers. The prosecution have no objection to such and interrogatory They ask the Tribunal to let them reserve the right to put in a cross- interrogatory. The , next, the defendant Frick asks for Dr. Konrad (?) as a witness on the question of church persecution, and the prosecution suggests that an interrogatory would be sufficient on this point and I think there is a little con fusion here. I think that what is desired is for an affidavit. The original application says: "Contrary to the charge to the effect that the defendant participated in the persecution of the churches, an affidavit by the witness is to establish that Frick strongly defended ccurch interests." So the only question is between an affidavit and an interrogatory, not between an oral witness and an interrogatory. Then if I might leave the next one it is the application on behalf of the defendant Goering. My friend, Colonel Pokrovsky is going to deal with that. I pass to the application of the defendant Hess and Frank, That is Dr. Seidl's application: and if i might just read what is stated in the General Secretary's note, it is official information from the ministry of War of the United States of America, or another Ministerial Service official of the Office of Strategic Services. It is stated that such a report is desired to show that the witness Gisevius had perjured himself on the witness stand and that they desire to show this to attack his credibility. It is alleged that the perjuring consits of his denial of receiving any favors from any power at war with Germany, which is supposed to be at variance with his statement that he had friendly and political relations with the American Secret Service and with some subsequently published reports.
Confirmation of these two factors, alleged to be at variance with his prior statements, is sought by request on official state ment; and they ask for the United States Secretary of war, Mr. Patterson, as a witness for the essential points in case the Tribunal does not consider an official report admissible or sufficient or the United States Ministry of War refuses the information.
Now, My Lord. I deal with this matter simply as a question of jurisprudence on which I submit that the English view is a sound one and should be followed by this Tribunal. The law of England, as I understand it, is that when you cross examine a witness to credit, you are bound by his answers. There is only one exception from that which is, in my recollection contained in a note in Rescue Criminal .Evidence, that when you have cross examined a witness to credit, you may call a witness that is to say, that knowing the general reputation of the witness who has been cross examined to credit, on that general reputation and only on his general reputation, the witness, one would not believe him on it. That is the only exception that I know in English Law.
THE PRESIDENT: And, of course, if he is cross examined as to a crime or a misdemeanor, he may be contradicted.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFFE: Certainly, your Lordship is quite right. I should have put that as an exception; that if he is cross-examined as to a specific conviction, then the conviction may be proved. I am very grateful to your Lordship. But, my Lord, what is not permissible in English jurisprudence is that when a witness has been cross examined to credit on particular facts other than a conviction by the state, evidence may be adduced as to these particular facts.
I should submit that the princip which I am sure obtains in all systems of jurisprudence, Interest reipublicae out sit finis litium must apply and support that condition. Now, I put that in English. I am sorry. "It is in the interests of the community that there should be an end of the legal proceedings."
My Lord, if one didn't apply the limit which English jurisprudence has applied, one would then call evidence to attack the credit of witnesses for the prosecution. The prosecution would then render a rebuttal and call evidence to attack the credit of each of these witnesses who had attacked the credit of the prosecution's witness and there would never be an end to legal proceedings at all. My Lord, on that point which is a general point -- and I don't meant be academic -- it is a point of practical importance for preserving some december limit to legal proceedings -- I should submit that this application should be refused. My Lord, I think that covers ail the points except the question of the defendant Goering's application with which, my friend, Colonel Pokrovsky will deal.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: The defendant Goering applied for calling supplement witnesses in regard to the mass murder in the Katyn Forest and on the standpoint and the particular part played by the armed forces regarding it, and he wants to prove that German armed forces were not in any way concerned with this Hitler provocation on the part of the Hitlerites. The prosecution of the Soviet Union strenuously protests.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, we have this matter fully in our mind as we have already had to consider it therefore, it isn't necessary for you at deal with it in detail, for I understand these are new witnesses who haven't before been applied for.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I had in mind the fact that the new witnesses have I called and, previsely, I would like to inform the Tribunal about our point of view and that is as far as the calling of the new witnesses is concerned, without going into detail about the Katyn Forest murders.
The Soviet prosecution, from the very beginning, considered Katyn Forest as a generally known fact and the Indictment already mentioned this. It is mentioned in the Indictment and we limited ourselves only to reading short excerpts about this incident and on account of this Tribunal, we realize that we deal with this episode merely as with an incident but if the question is raised and such is the question, which was mentioned by Sir David, that is, the fact that the Tribunal may be dubious about the credibility of vertain witnesses or certain documents -- then, once again, we would be forced to present new evidence in order to discredit the material presented by the defense again.
admit two new witnesses relative to the Katyn Forest shootings, then the Soviet Prosecution will find itself obligated to call about nine more new witnesses who were experts and specialists, and to present to the Tribunal new evidence which has been recently received by us, new documents. reading into the record all of the documents of the Special Commission, excerpts from which were read before the Tribunal. We think that it will delay greatly the proceedings, and it will not be a matter of hours but days. this, and I think that it should be denied since there is absolutely no basis or reason for it. application on the part of the defendant Goering. said in regard to the application on the part of Dr. Seidl. I will not express all our motives. We certainly support Sir David fully, who considers that Dr. Seidl's applications should be denied. But I want to report to you that this morning I find a document being sent to you, your Honor, which expresses fully and in detail all our motives and considerations in regard to this, and this document is presented to the Tribunal Therefore, without taking your time, I find another way to inform the Tribunal about our position.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, it is not necessary, I think, to ask counsel, for the defendant Schirach to address the Tribunal, because there is no objection to those two applications with reference to the witness Meezellich and the interrogatory of Kauffmann. consider that. They are going to consider it as they said they would in their previous order.
to the affidavit for Kallus, and so unless the counsel for Funk wants to address us upon it, we need not bother with that. Gessner as a witness, so perhaps counsel for Streicher had better say anything that he wishes to say.
(No response)
As to Sauckel there has been no objection. as to Seyss-Inquart, an interrogatory -- there is no objection there. interrogatory. It wasn't quite clear whether the application meant that. Is counsel for the defendant Frick here or not?
(No response). Well, we will consider that. applications for the defendant Goering.
With reference to Hess and Frank, as to Gesevius' evidence Dr. Seidl, do you wish to say anything about that?
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, the application regarding collecting of information was only made for that one purpose, to obtain evidence for the credibility of witness Gesevius. Afterwards I made an application for examination on the Secret of War Patterson by means of a questionnaire, interrogatory, which would deal with the same subject. the OSS, General Donovan, also, by means of an interrogatory. I think that this now application has not yet reached the Tribunal. first named witness, Patterson, has only been minister of War for a comparatively short period, and since it appeared sui tab that additionally the chief of that organization should himsel be asked questions as a witness.
statement in the application of the first of May of this year, which has been submitted as an Appensix 1, and I also refer to Appendix 2, which is a report of the Associated press regarding this episode. Fyfe's statement. deal with credibility of other witnesses, the Tribunal doesn't appear to be bound to any particular rules. Neither in the Charter for the International Military Tribunal nor in any other instructions are rules contained in that respect. In my opinion it is entirely and exclusively left to the free decision of the Tribunal whether under certain circumstances such additic means of evidence referring to credibility of a witness should be admitted or not. with out any doubt, but since the Tribunal in creating this procedure is not bound by any known procedure, I see no reason why any particular habits of procedure of the Anglo-American right should now be considered since the Charter neither considers the Anglo-American legislation or legal procedure, not the German legal procedure, and since this is a Tribunal and a procedure which is going entirely its own ways and since it is given complete freedom as to the decisions. That is all I wanted to say in that connection.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, Dr. Seidl. Do the questions which you wish to put with reference to the witness Gesevius relate solely to credit?
DR. SEIDL: In my written application I have already said that as far as I am concerned, it isn't a question of whether under certain circumstances the witness Gesevius did commit an action which in accordance with the German law may be a crime.
The questions I wanted to put were merely referring to the credibility of the witness before this very Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what I thought.
Now, one other question I wanted to ask you. Are those pacts or agreements, which you say existed between the soviet Republics and Germany -- are they published in print? Have all the documents which you wish to use been typewritten or mimeographed and circulated to the Tribunal?
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, on the 13th of April of this year, six copies of those five documents were given to the General Secretary by me, and, over and above that, I have given a corresponding number of documents to the Prosecution. All those documents are typewritten or respectively they are multigraphed.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SEIDL: Perhaps, if I may, I should like to add one thing. That is that on some earlier occasion the Tribunal have admitted an affidavit from Bmassador Gauss as evidence. That first affidavit is a summary of these secret agreements.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I know that.
DR. SEIDL: In my opinion, it seems that if one had the actual agreements one could refer to the agreements as such, and wouldn't have to satisfy oneself with a summary. If the Tribunal so desires, and considers it necessary, then I should of course be prepared at this stage, or at some later stage, to deal with the relevancy of these agreements, and draw the Tribunal's attention to it. appears that these agreements are relevant as evidence, and perhaps, if I may, I should like to point out -
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has already ordered that these documents should be submitted, and then will then consider them. That is what they propose to do; so it is not necessary to go into them in detail. We will consider the matter. DR. SAUTER.
DR. SAUTER (Counsel for defendant Funk): Mr. President, on the occasion of the examination of Defendant Funk, a film was shown on the wall in this courtroom, and an application from witness Puhl has been read. Puhl was the vice-president of the Reichsbank. At that time, following an application of mine, the Tribunal decided that this witness, Emil Puhl, should be called as a witness to come here for examination.
I should like to ask that you amend your decision in one direction. I consider that it would be suitable that this witness Puhl should see the film which you saw on this wall a few days ago, and that he should see it so that he can state whether in fact the steel safes of the Reichsbank looked as they were shown in this film.
I should like to ask, therefore, Mr. President, that you order that this short film which we were shown twice the other day should also be shown to the witness Puhl before his examination. It is, of course, not necessary that this should be done during the session of the Tribunal; it can be done in the presence of the prosecutor and myself, outside this courtroom. that it is necessary that he should first of all see this film. I was going to make this application today so that when the witness Puhl is examined, there should be no delay.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the witness Puhl know the vaults in Frankfurt which were photographed?
DR. SAUTER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: He was there, was he not?
DR. SAUTER: Yes; but I assume, Mr. President, that the witness Puhl, who was the acting vice-president, would know the steel safes in Frankfurt as well. Apart from that, I believe that these vaults in the various branches of the.
Reichsbank were all built after one pattern, and were in practive treated after that same system, or pattern, He will be able, also, to state whether that type of safe keeping as it was pictures in this film was, in fact, such as the Reichsbank would use when looking after deposits.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the prosecution anything to say about this?
MR. ALBRECHT: If your Honor please, I think as it is a document in this case, we would be very glad to show them to the witness before he is crommexamined by Dr. Sauter.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And perhaps the most convenient way would be, as Dr. Sauter suggests, that he should be shown the film in some room in this court, not actually in this room, but in another room.
MR. ALBRECHT: Yes; we can do so in the presence of the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you can arrange that between yourself and Dr. Sauter?
MR. ALBRECHT: Very well, sir.
DR. SAUTER: Thank you very much, indeed.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, has any time been arranged for the calling of Puhl?
DR. SAUTER: No; nothing as yet has been arranged. As far as I have heard, the witness is already here, and when he is to be examined is something I do not know. I shall leave that entirely to the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: What would be the most convenient thing? SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, Mr. Dalton suggest to me, at the close of the case of the defendant Doenitz.
THE PRESIDENT: Would that be convenient? I do not know, Wouldn't it be better to put it after the defendant Raeder, since they are rather connected cases ?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: If the Tribunal would prefer that, we could make it after Raeder.
THE PRESIDENT; I do not know whether Dr. Kranzbuehler and Dr. Siemers would prefer that.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you could arrange that with them.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, my lord.
THE PRESIDENT: That is to say, we would take Puhl's evidence as soon as convenient, either after the evidence on behalf of the defendant Doenitz or after the evidence on behalf of the defendant Raeder, whichever you prefer.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If your Lordship prefer, we will do that.
DR. SAUTER: Very well; I agree.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, I should like to inform the Tribunal that colleague Stahmer's applications for the defendant Goering for clarifying the Tribunal are interesting to me with reference to my client. The procedure of the applications represented, by the Russian prosecutor indicated to me that this subject, too, is to be used to implicate the general staff and the OKW, or has been used for that purpose, although no evidence to the effect has been submitted, that the events took place, either by order or with the agreement of the General Staff and the OKW.
THE PRESIDENTL Does this not, perhaps, interest all the defendants?
DR. LATERNSER: Yes. But I should merely like to inform the Tribunal that I am interested in colleague Stahmer's applications, and that I am also asking you to allow them. We have agreed to share our task, and that is why the colleague Stahmer may have made the applications. And I merely wanted to inform the Tribunal of that arrangement. Melte was speaking on behalf of the defendant Keitel, and was forfeiting the examination of the witness Halder, I pointed, out to the Tribunal that by this action, my privileges were being infringed, and that the witness Halder should have to be allowed for cross examination by the Russian prosecution. examined, and the Tribunal was going to tell me in the near future what its decision would be now. Some time has passed, and I have not yet received such a decision. I merely wanted to point to that affair before this Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Your witnesses have not been dealt with, have they? You have not applied for your witnesses yet? They have not been preferred? The matter has not been dealt with?
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, the same understanding, seems to appear again which occurred when some time ago I pointed out to you that when the witness Halder was cancelled, my rights were being infringed. The situation at the time was that the Russian prosecution was submitting an affidavit from General Halder, and that when the defense objected, which was done in my name, too, at the time, the Tribunal decided that witness Halder would appear, and would have to appear for examination here. And that is why I have the impression that I ought to present the situation to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: But the convenient time is the question. You will have the opportunity to cross examine him. But the question is when. You want to cross examine him yourself on behalf of the High Command.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: We will consider that. Dr. Laternser.
(An adjournment was taken until 1000 hours, Monday, 13 May 1946.)
Wilhelm Goering, et al. Defendants, sitting at
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: With the permission of the Tribunal I would like to submit my remaining documents, and then as my first witness I shall use Admiral Wagner.
The next document I come to is Doenits 37. It is an extract from the documents of German Politics about the Altmark case. I do not propose to read it. It is from the reports of the Captain of the Altmark, He has reported that the sailors of the Altmark were shot when they were escaping into the water, partly across the ice. There were seven dead.
It can be found, Mr. President on page 78. It is volume No. 2 on page 79. It is shown that this entire action did not find full recognition in spite of the bloody incidents which no doubt were regretted by the Admirality.
The next document is Doenitz 39. It has partly been read by Sir David Maxwell Fyfe during cross examination and can be found on page 81 and the follow ing pages. ing the shooting of the survivors of a German ship, Ulm. ported to the German Naval Command at that time, and which contained examples delaing with cases where survivors were shot at by Allied Forces, I am not so much interested in these twelve actual examples but entirely in the attitude adopted by the Naval Command Staff, and the example were, of course, submitted to German Naval Command and Staff. page 83, at the top.
"The following accounts deal with incidents which, as directed, have already been reported, and in making use of then it must also be considered, that
a) Some of those incidents occured before the battle had been closed;
b) Shipwrecked persons swimming about in the water easily mistake shots which missed their real target, as directed against then.