THE PRESIDENT: I think perhaps we might adjourn now, Dr. Nelte, until a
quarter past 2.
[_The Tribunal recessed until 1415 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
THE PRESIDENT: I think, Dr. Nelte, you had really finished with your
witnesses, had you not?
DR. NELTE: Yes, I think so. I must only reserve the right on what I may
have to state, after the Soviet Prosecution have finished presenting
their case—whether I still may wish to call this or that witness. As to
the documents I should like to put a few questions which are of
particular interest for me—rather for the Defendant Keitel.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
DR. NELTE: The Tribunal knows my main subject of evidence. In order to
prove that in many cases the Prosecution is wrong in assuming the OKW
and the Defendant Keitel to be responsible, I can refer to a great many
documents which have been presented by the Prosecution.
I take it that these documents are not to be submitted by me as
evidential material, as they have already been put in. I ask the
Tribunal for examination of these documents and for a ruling that in my
pleadings on behalf of the defendant I may refer to such documents
without having to submit or quote them.
I should like to add that the Tribunal, having been informed about the
structure of the Armed Forces or parts of them and about the
competencies of the various commands, will itself be able to judge which
of the documents submitted are not suitable for supporting the
allegations of the Prosecution regarding the responsibility of the
Defendant Keitel.
I am also convinced that the Tribunal, in its findings, will examine
carefully any document relevant to the question of guilt, even if the
Defense does not submit such documents, and even if the Defense cannot
submit a comprehensive presentation in view of the extremely large
number of documents—there are thousands relating to the Defendant
Keitel—and even if the Defense cannot deal with all these documents in
the final speeches.
Furthermore, I should like to submit to the Tribunal another question
which is important for the presentation of evidence on behalf of the
Defendant Keitel and which is of great importance.
During the session of 1 February 1946, the French Prosecutor made the
following statement, and I quote:
“Chapter 4 and the last will bear the heading, ‘The
Administrative Organization of Criminal Action’. . . . for the
fourth chapter I might point out that the French Delegation
examined more than 2,000 documents, counting only the original
German documents of which I have kept only about 50.”
According to the opening address of the United States Chief Prosecutor,
there can be no doubt that these 50 documents were selected merely from
the point of view of incriminating the defendant. On 11 February, if I
remember correctly, I addressed myself to the French Prosecution with a
request to place at my disposal for examination the remaining 1,950
documents, which the French Prosecution did not use.
To date I have received no answer. The Tribunal will appreciate the
difficulties of my position. I know there are documents there which I am
sure contain also exonerating facts. Yet I am not able to specify these
documents. I beg the Tribunal, therefore, for a ruling in this
matter—that the Prosecution should place at my disposal those documents
for my perusal.
THE PRESIDENT: With reference to these particular documents that you are
asking for, are you going to say anything about them?
DR. NELTE: I do not know the contents of these documents. I know only
that the French Prosecution have these 2,000 documents. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you wish to deal with that now, I will ask the
French Prosecutor to answer what you have said.
DR. NELTE: If Your Honor pleases, I leave it to the Tribunal whether
they wish to examine this question or whether it can be dealt with now.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think we had better hear from the French
Prosecutor now.
M. CHARLES DUBOST (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic): A
certain number of documents of doubtful origin were in our hands at the
time that we were beginning to prepare our prosecution. We have
eliminated all documents which could not bear serious critical
examination. We undertook a critical task and rejected all those that
were considered to be insufficient proof. At the end of this task about
fifty documents remained which have been referred to by my colleagues
and which appeared relevant. These 50 documents have, moreover, not all
been accepted by the Tribunal, which has rejected some, and if I
remember rightly, 3 or 4 of whose origin we were not quite sure. In
these conditions, it is absolutely incorrect to say that we have kept
1,950 documents from the Defense.
We handed over to the Court, and therefore to the Defense, the 50
documents which in themselves seemed to us to have sufficient probative
value.
If I understand this request of the Defense they wish the Court to ask
to have handed to them documents of which some have been rejected by the
Court itself as not having sufficient probative value or as not being
sufficiently authenticated. The Tribunal will decide whether this
request should be granted. As far as I am concerned, I must oppose this
application with all my might because it would mean taking into account
documents which did not offer a sufficiently authentic character for the
examination we made, and which the Tribunal itself also made when we
submitted to it some of these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but M. Dubost, the position is this: There were a
large number of documents which the Counsel for the French Prosecution
said that they had examined; and the French Prosecution, in the exercise
of their discretion, thought it unnecessary to refer to more than a
certain number of them; but it is only the French Prosecution which has
exercised their discretion about those documents, and what Dr. Nelte is
asking is to see them for the purpose of seeing whether there is
anything in the documents which assists his case. Would the French
Prosecution have any objection to that? I mean—it may be that some of
the documents are no longer in the possession of the French Prosecution,
but those that are in their possession, would the French Prosecution
object to Dr. Nelte’s seeing those?
M. DUBOST: May I remind the Tribunal that the documents which we
rejected were not rejected as useless in the beginning, but as not
presenting sufficient guarantee as to their origin, as to the conditions
under which we obtained them and as to their probative value.
The Tribunal will no doubt remember that a certain number of these
documents were rejected by the Court itself. Those which we did not
consider are of the same character as those documents which were
rejected. We did not submit them because we could not tell you where,
when, and how they had been discovered. For the most part, they are
documents that fell into the hands of combat troops in battle, and under
the terms of jurisprudence do not offer sufficient guarantee to be
retained.
Insofar as they are still in my possession I am ready to communicate
them to Defense Counsel, it being clearly understood that they will not
attach to them any higher merit, any higher value than I did.
THE PRESIDENT: That may very well be. I think that all Dr. Nelte wants
is to see any documents which you have brought to see whether he can
find anything in them that he thinks may help the case of the defendant
for whom he appears, and I understand you would not have any objection
to his doing that.
M. DUBOST: I would only answer the Defense Counsel that some of those
documents were rejected by your Tribunal when I presented them.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, of course, it would not apply to documents which
have been rejected by the Court. Very well. We will not decide the
matter now. We will consider it.
DR. NELTE: Would the Tribunal announce its decision regarding the first
question which I brought up, namely, whether it is sufficient that I
refer to documents which have been presented by the Prosecution without
submitting them myself.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: On that point I would like to support Dr.
Nelte’s suggestion. If a document has already been put in, I should have
thought it was right and convenient that Counsel for the Defense could
comment on it without putting it in again, and should have full right of
comment.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that I have said on a variety of occasions that
any document which has been put in evidence, or a part of which has been
put in evidence, can, of course, be used by the Defense in order to
explain or criticize the part that has been put in. It may be that as a
matter of informing the Tribunal as to the document, it may be necessary
to have part of the document, which has not been put in evidence, put in
now in order that it may be translated.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not know whether it would be convenient if
I indicated to Dr. Nelte the views of the Prosecution on his list of
documents, or whether he would like to develop it himself. I can quite
shortly do that if it would be convenient.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it would shorten things if you would.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: A considerable number of the documents in the
list fall into that category which has just been mentioned. Documents 3
to 9, 17 and 29, 30 and 31 all appear to be in, and therefore Dr. Nelte
may comment in accordance with your ruling.
Then there are a number of documents which are affidavits, either of
defendants or intended witnesses: Documents 12, 13, 22, 23, 24, 25, and
28.
The Tribunal may remember that in the case of the witness, Dr. Blaha, my
friend, Mr. Dodd, adopted the practice of asking the witness, “Is your
affidavit true?” and then reading the affidavit to save time. The
Prosecution have no objection to Dr. Nelte’s pursuing that course,
should he so desire; but, of course, where a witness is going to be
called as a witness, he will have to verify his affidavit on oath, in
the submission of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. You mean that, if the witness is here, you
have no objection to Dr. Nelte’s reading the affidavit and the witness
being then liable to cross-examination?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The witness will say, “I agree; I verify the
facts that are in my affidavit.”
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It might save considerable time in the
examination-in-chief, and we should all be prepared to co-operate in
that.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, is Dr. Nelte agreeable to that course? Is that what
he means?
DR. NELTE: Entirely.
THE PRESIDENT: Possibly, Sir David, if the affidavit were presented to
the Prosecution, they might be able to say that they did not wish to
cross-examine. That would save the witnesses being here or being brought
here.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It might be in the case of Dr. Lehmann. I think
all the other cases are either defendants or witnesses with regard to
whom there are certain points which the Prosecution would like to ask.
Then there are three documents to which there are no objections to their
being used: 18, 26, and 27.
That leaves a number of documents as to whose use I am not quite sure at
the moment, but it may be that Dr. Nelte will explain how he wishes to
use them, and that may remove the difficulty of the Prosecution. If the
Tribunal will be good enough to look at 1 and 2, 1 is an expert’s
opinion on state laws concerning the Führer state, and the importance of
the Führer order, and Document 2 is an order of the Führer, Number 1.
If it is desired to use these so as to controvert Article 8 of the
Charter, the Prosecution will object. That is a question of superior
orders.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If they are only used to explain the backgrounds
as a matter of history, that may be a different matter. Now, the next
one is Document 10—a need for a ministry of rearmament, taken from. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Even so, Sir David, in your submission, ought we to
accept the opinion of an expert on such a point?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, Your Honor. We do not at all. I am afraid
that my second remark really applied to the order of the Führer. That
might be used as a background or it might be used for purposes of
mitigation or explanation of how a thing took place, but I respectfully
agree that the expert’s opinion on state laws cannot be used with regard
to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Of course, the law of any other
state may be a question of fact as far as the Tribunal is concerned just
as it would be a question of fact in an English court: “What is the law
of another state?” As I say, I want to reserve emphatically the position
of Article 8 with regard to these two documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, Documents 10 and 11 deal with rearmament in
other countries. I do not want to prevent the Defense using
illustrations, but again I reserve the position most emphatically that
rearmament in other countries cannot be an excuse for aggressive war and
would be irrelevant on that point.
Now, 15 and 16 refer to books by Major General Fuller and Major General
Temperley, who are both ex-officers, who were journalists during this
period. As far as any question of fact that is stated in these books, if
Dr. Nelte will let us know what the passage is, we shall see whether we
could admit it, but the general views of Major General Fuller and Major
General Temperley we would submit to be irrelevant.
Then, 19, 20, and 21 are books about Austria. Again the Prosecution
reserves the position that the earlier state of opinion in Austria with
regard to an Anschluss is irrelevant when considering the question of
the aggressive action in breach of the Treaty of 1936 which took place
in 1938.
I think, My Lord, that I have now dealt with all the documents and, as I
say, they fall into these four groups; with regard to three of which
there is nothing really between us in principle, and with regard to the
fourth, the Prosecution wants to reserve these various points which I
have mentioned. Again I want to make clear that the Prosecution does not
object to Dr. Nelte’s obtaining any of these books for the purpose of
preparing his case, but we want them to make clear at the earliest
opportunity what their position is with regard to their use.
DR. NELTE: With respect to the first three categories, the Prosecution
agrees with me that I can confine myself to the last category which
begins with Documents 1 and 2. One of the fundamental questions of this
Trial, which at first glance appears a purely legal problem, is the
question of the so-called Führer state (Führerstaat) and Führer order
(Führerbefehl). This question has, however, important actual
significance here at this Trial, also of a factual importance. For
instance, the Defendant Keitel, as a result of his particular position,
was to the utmost degree affected by this Führer state principle and
acted accordingly as he was continuously in personal contact with the
incarnation of this principle, namely, Hitler. It is not as if Article 8
of the Charter remained unaffected by it. It will, however, so I assume,
be possible to prove that Article 8 of the Charter is not applicable
here.
As to the Führer Order Number 1, Document Number 2, the Tribunal itself
will, upon hearing the order, be able to judge whether it bears any
relevance. This order, Führer Order Number 1, from Keitel Document Book
Number 1, reads:
“a) No one is to have any knowledge of secret matters which do
not fall within his sphere.
“b) No one is to obtain more information than he needs for the
fulfillment of the task set him.
“c) No one is to receive information earlier than is necessary
for the duties assigned to him.
“d) No one is to pass on to subordinates more secret orders or
at an earlier date than is indispensable for the attainment of
the purpose.”
Document Number 1, that is, the expert opinion on the Führer state and
Führer order, in connection with this Führer Order Number 1, is to serve
as proof for the fact that there can be no question of conspiracy in the
sense of the Indictment. Therefore, I request the Tribunal to admit
those two documents as relevant. Documents Number 10 and Number 11, and
also to a certain degree, Number 16, are submitted as proof that the
principles which the Defendant Keitel, as a soldier and a German,
considered to be important, namely, rearmament up to a point of securing
a respectable position for Germany among the council of nations, were
not only postulated by the German people, but also appreciated and
approved by important persons abroad. This subject is to be proved by
submission of articles by a British, a French, and an American author,
military men, all of whom hold a high reputation for their writings on
military matters. Among these is the article “Total War,” by Major
General Fuller, my Document 15, as well as the book by the British Major
General Temperley, _The Whispering Gallery of Europe_. Mr. Fuller, for
instance, writes in his article, that:
“It is nonsense to state that he”—Hitler—“wanted war. War
could not bring him the rebirth of his nation. What he needed
was an honorable, secure peace.”
The point to be proved here is that any aggressive intentions would of
themselves be incompatible with the pronouncements of Hitler and the
leading Nazis, if one believes in their sincerity. The defendant
believed in the sincerity of these pronouncements and to this end he
referred to the opinion of important persons abroad.
I think those are the documents to which the Prosecution raised certain
objections.
THE PRESIDENT: You have not mentioned 19 to 21, which documents are said
to reveal a certain state of opinion in Austria.
DR. NELTE: Yes. Those documents—Number 19, “The Cultural and Political
Importance of the Anschluss,” and Document 20, “The Way Toward the
Anschluss,” and the third, “The Anschluss in the International Press,”
dated 1931—are to prove the defendant could assume, and was justified
in so doing, that the overwhelming majority of Austrian people welcomed
the Anschluss with Germany. These are articles and memoranda of the
Austro-German Peoples Union, the chairman of which was the Social
Democrat Reichstag President Loebe.
THE PRESIDENT: That concludes the documents, does it not?
DR. NELTE: I should like to make only one additional application to the
Tribunal, which refers to documents which I have been unable to mention
earlier since they were not submitted until the sitting of 22 February.
I shall now submit this application. It refers to 11 documents, all of
which were presented during the Friday sitting in order to prove the
complicity of Keitel in the destruction during the retreat and in regard
to forced labor of prisoners of war and civilian population. From the
contents of these documents submitted by the Prosecution, it becomes
apparent that, according to evidence I have already offered, a large
number of the accusations of the Prosecution are to be attributed to the
fact that every document which dealt in any way with military matters
was simply charged to the OKW and Keitel.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, as I understand it, all these documents have
already been put in evidence.
DR. NELTE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then they fall into the category to which Sir David
agreed. They could be touched on by you.
DR. NELTE: That is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no need to make any fresh application in
connection with them.
DR. NELTE: When I made this additional application I had not yet
received Sir David’s consent. Besides this seems to be a particularly
singular and convincing case because, on one day, 11 documents were
submitted, all of which were used as accusations against Keitel, but
which all showed by their contents that they do not apply to him or the
OKW.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. There is only one other thing that I wanted
to ask you. You asked at an earlier stage for the evidence from
Ambassador Messersmith and Otto Wettberg and in both, cases the Tribunal
granted you interrogatories. I do not know whether you are withdrawing
your application in respect to those cases or whether you have seen the
answers to the interrogatories.
DR. NELTE: I have, in accordance with the suggestion, sent those
interrogatories to Ambassador Messersmith as well as to Otto Wettberg.
Depending on the reply I shall receive from those two witnesses, I shall
or shall not submit them.
THE PRESIDENT: You have submitted the one for Otto Wettberg, have you?
DR. NELTE: Yes, but I have not received it back.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The Exhibit Number 1, would you explain a
little bit more what Number 1 is going to be? It appears to be the
opinion of an expert witness on the meaning of the Führer precept. Is
that what you intend?
DR. NELTE: Yes. It is an article in the field of constitutional law on
the structure and significance of what is known as the Leader State
(Führerstaat).
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Yes, Colonel Smirnov.
CHIEF COUNSELLOR OF JUSTICE L. N. SMIRNOV (Assistant Prosecutor for the
U.S.S.R.): May it please Your Honors, it is my duty to submit to the
Tribunal evidence on the last count of the Indictment. “Crimes against
Humanity” are dealt with in Count Four of the Indictment, and by Article
6, and particularly Subparagraph C of Article 6, of the Charter.
I shall submit evidence of crimes which the Hitlerites committed on the
territories of the temporarily occupied areas of the Soviet Union,
Poland, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and Greece.
The Crimes against Humanity—just as the other crimes of the German
fascists for which evidence has been submitted to the Tribunal by my
colleagues—originated in the criminal nature of fascism, in its
endeavors to dominate the world by predatory seizure of whole states in
the East and in the West, and by enslavement and mass extermination of
people. These crimes were put into effect by adoption of the
cannibalistic theories of German fascism.
Elements forming the concept of Crimes against Humanity are to be found
in nearly all the criminal acts of the Hitlerites. For instance, a
considerable amount of probative facts in corroboration of the gravity
of the crimes committed by the German fascists has already been
submitted to the Tribunal during the presentation of the Count
concerning War Crimes against the civilian population.
The criminal violation by the Hitlerites of the laws and customs of war,
as well as the mass extermination of prisoners of war, are some of the
gravest Crimes against Humanity. At the same time, the concept Crimes
against Humanity is considerably broader in scope than any definition of
German fascist crimes, of which proofs have been hitherto submitted to
the Tribunal.
Together with the arrival of German forces and the appearance of the
swastika on official buildings, life of the inhabitants of the
temporarily occupied eastern European countries seemed to stop. The
merciless fascist machine tried to force them to be deprived of all that
which, as a result of centuries of human development, had become an
integral part of humanity.
Thus, death hung over them constantly, but on their way to death they
were forced to pass through numerous and agonizing phases, insulting to
human dignity, which constitute, in their entirety, the charge entitled
in the Indictment “Crimes against Humanity.”
Attempts were made to force them to forget their own names by hanging a
number around their necks or by sewing a classification mark on their
sleeves. They were deprived of the right to speak or to read in their
mother tongue. They were deprived of their homes, their families, their
native country, forcibly deported hundreds and thousands of kilometers
away. They were deprived of the right to procreate. They were daily
scoffed at and insulted. Their feelings and beliefs were jeered at and
ridiculed. And, finally, they were deprived of their last right—to
live.
The numerous investigations noted not only the state of extreme physical
exhaustion of the victims of German fascist atrocities; they also
usually mentioned the state of deep moral depression of those who, by
the hazards of fate, escaped the fascist hell.
A long period of time was necessary for these victims of German fascism
to return once again to a world of normal conceptions and activities and
to man’s conventions for human society. All this is very hard to express
in legal formula, but, in my opinion, it is very important in the
Indictment of the major war criminals.
I ask the Tribunal to refer to the report of the Polish Government which
has already been submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-93
(Document Number USSR-93). The quotation which I should like now to read
is on Page 10 of the document book. On Page 70 of the Russian text of
this report, there is a quotation from the statement of Jacob Vernik, a
carpenter from Warsaw, who spent a year in the extermination camp of
Treblinka 2. Sometimes the official German documents refer to “Treblinka
2” as “Treblinka B,” but it is one and the same. This was one of the
most terrible centers for mass extermination of people, created by
German fascists. In my statement, I shall submit to Your Honors evidence
connected with the existence of this camp.
This is what Vernik said in presenting a report on Treblinka to the
Polish Government; a report which, as he stressed in his foreword, was
his only reason “to continue his pitiful life”:
“Awake or asleep I see terrible visions of thousands of people
calling for help, begging for life and mercy.
“I have lost my family, I have myself led them to death; I have
myself built the death chambers in which they were murdered.
“I am afraid of everything, I fear that everything I have seen
is written on my face. An old and broken life is a heavy burden,
but I must carry on and live to tell the world what German
crimes and barbarism I saw.”
The persons who came to Treblinka entered, as I said, the ante-chamber
of death. But were they the only victims of this fate? An analysis of
probative facts connected with the crimes of the German fascists
irrefutably testifies to the fact that the same fate was shared not only
by those who were sent to special extermination camps, but also all
those who became the victims of these criminals in the temporarily
occupied countries of Eastern Europe.
I ask the Tribunal’s permission to bring in evidence a short quotation
from a document already submitted to the Tribunal as Document Number
USSR-46—the report of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet
Union on the crimes committed in the city and region of Orel. In the
text of this document there is a special communication of a famed
Russian scientist, a doctor, the President of the Academy of Medical
Science and member of the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet
Union, Academician Burdenko. The Tribunal will find this communication
on Page 14 of the document book, Paragraph 6:
“The scenes I had to witness”—says Burdenko—“surpassed the
wildest imagination. Our joy at the sight of the delivered
people was dimmed by the expression of stupor on their faces.
“This led one to reflect—what was the matter? Evidently the
sufferings they had undergone had stamped upon them equality of
life and death. I observed these people during 3 days. I
bandaged them, I evacuated them, but their physical stupor did
not change. Something similar could be noticed during the first
days on the faces of the doctors.”
I shall not, Your Honors, waste time in drawing attention to the long
and well-known extracts from _Mein Kampf_ or the _Myth of the Twentieth
Century_. We are interested, in the first place, in the criminal
practices of the German fascist fiends.
I have already said above, that death constantly hung over the people
who became the victims of fascism. Death could come unexpectedly,
together with the appearance in one or another place of a
Sonderkommando; but at the same time, a death sentence would be
pronounced for any act in these special decisions so mockingly called
German fascist “laws.”
I and other members of the Soviet Prosecution already have given
numerous examples of these terroristic laws, directives, and decrees of
the German fascist authorities. I do not wish to repeat myself, but I
beg the Tribunal’s permission to quote one of these documents as it
concerns all the temporarily seized eastern territories.
The only justification for the publication of this document for its
author, the Defendant Alfred Rosenberg, is that these temporarily
occupied districts were populated by non-Germans. This document is a
characteristic evidence of the persecution of people for racial,
national, or political motives. I beg the Tribunal to enter in the
record, as Exhibit Number USSR-395 (Document Number USSR-395), the
photostat of the so-called third decree supplementing the penal
directives for the Eastern territories which was issued by Alfred
Rosenberg on 17 February 1942. Your Honors will find this document on
Pages 19 and 20 of the document book. I shall read in full, beginning
with Paragraph 1:
“The death penalty, or, in lesser cases, penal servitude will be
inflicted upon: Those who undertake to use violence against the
German Reich or against the high authority established in the
occupied territories; those who undertake to commit violence
against a Reich citizen or a person of German nationality for
his or her belonging to this German nationality; those who
undertake to use violence against a member of the Wehrmacht or
its followers, the German police including its auxiliary forces,
the Reich Labor Service, a German authority or institution, or
the organizations of the NSDAP; those who appeal or incite to
disobedience of orders or directives issued by the German
authorities; those who with premeditation damage the furniture
of German authorities and institutions or things used by the
latter for their work or in the public interest; those who
undertake to assist anti-German movements or to maintain the
organizational connection of groups prohibited by the German
authorities; those who participate in or incite hostile activity
and thus reveal anti-German mentality or who by their behavior
lower or injure the authority or the welfare of the German State
and people; those who premeditatively commit arson and thereby
damage German interests in general or the property . . .”
THE PRESIDENT: Have you read this before?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I checked the transcript, and I do not think
that this has been read into the record.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: It may be that similar orders were read; maybe
those of Frank or some other orders. They are all alike. In any case I
could not find any mention of this document in the transcript.