Pulse: Rate 100, rhythm irregular. The irregularity was due to extra-systoles. The radial arteries were just palpable, without evidence of pathological thickening or tortuosity. Blood pressure: systolic 130 mm. of mercury, diastolic 80 mm. of mercury.
Heart: The heart was clinically not enlarged. The cardiac sounds were feeble, there was no accentuation of the second sound in the aortic area, nor were any cardiac murmurs audible. There were no vascular changes observable in the vessels of the fundi. There was no evidence of cedema or of congestive heart failure.
5. Respiratory Examination: Chest movement satisfactory. There was no impairment of percussion noted. Auscultation revealed no impairment of air entry, no alteration in the breath sounds, and the absence of any adventitious sounds.
6. Alimentary-renal Examination: There was slight distention of the abdomen, due to increase in the gaseous content of the intestines. There was no evidence of ascites. The spleen was not palpable, nor was there any evidence of glandular enlargement. The liver was just palpable, one finger’s breadth below the right costal margin, but there was no evidence of enlargement upwards. Urinalysis: no sugar or albumen present.
7. Skeletal Examination: The patient’s rigidity limited the examination of joints. There was limitation of movement of the neck due to muscular hypertonus. The hypertonus was so marked in the lower dorsal and lumbar region as to produce rigidity of the spine. Attempts to move the joints passively stimulated involuntary contractures of the muscles. There was evidence of crepitus in both knee-joints.
DISCUSSION:
The clinical record presented by this patient is that of an organic cerebral disorder, with predominant involvement of the frontal lobes and basal ganglia. The mental disintegration of the patient renders him incapable of comprehending his environment, and of reacting normally to it. He remains uniformly apathetic and disinterested, intellectually retarded to a very marked degree, and shows no evidence of spontaneous activity.
The above findings are such as are found in the degenerative changes associated with senility. The findings in the visceral organs are likewise compatible with the diagnosis of senile degeneration.
The clinical course, from the evidence obtained, has been that of a gradual decline over a period of years, with more rapid deterioration during the past year. Such deterioration will continue, and would be rapidly accelerated, with immediate danger to the patient’s life, were he to be moved from his present location.
DIAGNOSIS:
Senile degeneration of the brain tissues, selectively affecting the frontal lobes of the cerebral cortex and the basal ganglia, with associated senile degeneration of the visceral organs.
| /s/ | R. E. TUNBRIDGE | |
| Brigadier, O.B.E., M.D., M.Sc., F.R.C.P., Consulting Physician, British Army of the Rhine | ||
| /s/ | RENE PIEDELIEVRE | |
| M.D., Professor of the Paris Faculty of Medicine, Expert of the Tribunal | ||
| /s/ | NICOLAS KURSHAKOV | |
| M.D., Professor of Medicine, Medical Institute of Moscow, Chief Internist, Commissariat of Public Health U.S.S.R. | ||
| /s/ | EUGENE SEPP | |
| M.D., Emeritus Professor of Neurology, Medical Inst, of Moscow; Member, Academy of Medical Sciences, U.S.S.R. | ||
| /s/ | EUGENE KRASNUSHKIN | |
| M.D., Professor of Psychiatry, Medical Institute of Moscow. | ||
| /s/ | BERTRAM SCHAFFNER | |
| Major, Medical Corps, Neuropsychiatrist, Army of the United States |
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
— against —
HERMANN WILHELM GÖRING, et al.,
Defendants.
ANSWER FOR THE UNITED STATES TO THE MOTION FILED IN BEHALF OF KRUPP VON BOHLEN
The United States respectfully opposes the application on behalf of Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach that his trial be “deferred until he is again fit for trial.”
If the Tribunal should grant this application, the practical effect would be to quash all proceedings, for all time, against Krupp von Bohlen.
It appears that Krupp should not be arrested and brought to the court room for trial. But the plea is that the Tribunal also excuse him from being tried in absentia. This form of trial admittedly is authorized by Article 12 of the Charter of the Tribunal. Of course, trial in absentia in circumstance of the case is an unsatisfactory proceeding either for prosecution or for defense. But the request that Krupp von Bohlen be neither brought to court nor tried in his absence is based on the contention that “the interests of justice” require that he be thus excused from any form of trial. Public interests, which transcend all private considerations, require that Krupp von Bohlen shall not be dismissed unless some other representative of the Krupp armament and munitions interests be substituted. These public interests are as follows:
Four generations of the Krupp family have owned and operated the great armament and munitions plants which have been the chief source of Germany’s war supplies. For over 130 years this family has been the focus, the symbol, and the beneficiary of the most sinister forces engaged in menacing the peace of Europe. During the period between the two World Wars, the management of these enterprises was chiefly in Defendant Krupp von Bohlen. It was at all times however a Krupp family enterprise. Only a nominal owner himself, Von Bohlen’s wife, Bertha Krupp, owned the bulk of the stock. About 1937 their son, Alfried Krupp, became plant manager and was actively associated in the policy making and executive management thereafter. In 1940 Krupp von Bohlen, getting on in years, became chairman of the board of the concern, thus making way for Alfried who became president. In 1943 Alfried became sole owner of the Krupp enterprises by agreement between the family and the Nazi Government, for the purpose of perpetuating this business in Krupp family control. It is evident that the future menace of this concern lies in continuance of the tradition under Alfried, now reported to be an internee of the British Army of the Rhine.
To drop Krupp von Bohlen from this case without substitution of Alfried, drops from the case the entire Krupp family, and defeats any effective judgment against the German armament makers. Whether this would be “in the interests of justice” will appear from the following recital of only the most significant items of evidence now in possession of the United States as to the activities of Krupp von Bohlen in which his son, Alfried, at all times aided as did other associates in the vast armament enterprises, all plotting to bring about the second World War, and to aid in its ruthless and illegal conduct.
After the first World War, the Krupp family and their associates failed to comply with Germany’s disarmament agreements but all secretly and knowingly conspired to evade them.
In the 1 March 1940 issue of the Krupp Magazine, the Defendant Krupp stated:
“I wanted and had to maintain Krupp in spite of all opposition, as an armament plant for the later future, even if in camouflaged form. I could only speak in the smallest, most intimate circles, about the real reasons which made me undertake the changeover of the plants for certain lines of production . . . . Even the Allied snoop commissioners were duped . . . . After the accession to power of Adolf Hitler, I had the satisfaction of reporting to the Führer that Krupp stood ready, after a short warming-up period, to begin rearmament of the German people without any gaps of experience . . . .”
Krupp von Bohlen (and Alfried Krupp as well) lent his name, prestige and financial support to bring the Nazi Party, with an avowed program of renewing the war, into power over the German State. On 25 April 1931 Von Bohlen acted as chairman of the Association of German Industry to bring it into line with Nazi policies. On 30 May 1933 he wrote to Schacht that:
“It is proposed to initiate a collection in the most far-reaching circles of German industry, including agriculture and the banking world, which is to be put at the disposal of the Führer of the NSDAP in the name of ‘The Hitler Fund’ . . . . I have accepted the chairmanship of the management council.”
Krupp contributed from the treasury of the main Krupp company 4,738,446 marks to the Nazi Party fund. In June 1935 he contributed 100,000 marks to the Nazi Party out of his personal account.
The Nazi Party did not succeed in obtaining control of Germany until it obtained support of the industrial interests, largely through the influence of Krupp. Alfried first became a Nazi Party member and later Von Bohlen did also. The Krupp influence was powerful in promoting the Nazi plan to incite aggressive warfare in Europe.
Krupp von Bohlen strongly advocated and supported Germany’s withdrawal from the Disarmament Conference and from the League of Nations. He personally made repeated public speeches approving and inciting Hitler’s program of aggression: On 6 and 7 April 1938 two speeches approved annexation of Austria; on 13 October 1938 approving Nazi occupation of the Sudetenland; on 4 September 1939 approving the invasion of Poland; on 6 May 1941 commemorating success of Nazi arms in the West.
Alfried Krupp also made speeches to the same general effect. Krupps were thus one of the most persistent and influential forces that made this war.
Krupps also were the chief factor in getting ready for the war. In January 1944, in a speech at the University of Berlin, Von Bohlen boasted, “Through years of secret work, scientific and basic groundwork was laid in order to be ready again to work for the German Armed Forces at the appointed hour without loss of time or experience.” In 1937, before Germany went to war, Krupps booked orders to equip satellite governments on approval of the German High Command. Krupp contributed 20,000 marks to the Defendant Rosenberg for the purpose of spreading Nazi propaganda abroad. In a memorandum of 12 October 1939 a Krupp official wrote offering to mail propaganda pamphlets abroad at Krupp expense.
Once the war was on, Krupps, both Von Bohlen and Alfried being directly responsible therefor, led German industry in violating treaties and international law by employing enslaved laborers, impressed and imported from nearly every country occupied by Germany, and by compelling prisoners of war to make arms and munitions for use against their own countries. There is ample evidence that in Krupp’s custody and service they were underfed and overworked, misused, and inhumanly treated. Captured records show that in September 1944 Krupp concerns were working 54,990 foreign workers and 18,902 prisoners of war.
Moreover, the Krupp companies profited greatly from destroying the peace of the world through support of the Nazi program. The rearmament of Germany gave Krupp huge orders and corresponding profits. Before this Nazi menace to the peace began, the Krupps were operating at a substantial loss. But the net profits after taxes, gifts, and reserves steadily rose with rise of Nazi rearmament, being as follows:
| For year ending 30 September 1935— | 57,216,392 marks |
| For year ending 30 September 1938— | 97,071,632 marks |
| For year ending 30 September 1941— | 111,555,216 marks |
The book value of the Krupp concerns mounted from 75,962,000 marks on 1 October 1933, to 237,316,093 marks on 1 October 1943. Even this included many going concerns in occupied countries at a book value of only 1 mark each. These figures are subject to the adjustments and controversies usual with financial statements of each vast enterprise but approximately reflect the facts about property and operations.
The services of Alfried Krupp and of Von Bohlen and their family to the war aims of the Nazi Party were so outstanding that the Krupp enterprises were made a special exception to the policy of nationalization of industries. Hitler said that he would be “prepared to arrange for any possible safeguarding for the continued existence of the works as a family enterprise; it would be simplest to issue ‘lex Krupp’ to start with”. After short negotiations, this was done. A decree of 12 November 1943 preserves the Krupp works as a family enterprise in Alfried Krupp’s control and recites that it is done in recognition of the fact that “for 132 years the firm of Fried. Krupp, as a family enterprise has achieved outstanding and unique merits for the armed strength of the German people.”
It has at all times been the position of the United States that the great industrialists of Germany were guilty of the crimes charged in this Indictment quite as much as its politicians, diplomats, and soldiers. Its chief of counsel, on 7 June 1945, in a report to President Truman, released by him and with his approval, stated that the accusations of crimes include individuals in authority in the financial, industrial, and economic life of Germany as well as others.
Pursuant thereto, the United States, with approval of the Secretary Of State, proposed to indict Alfried Krupp, son of Krupp von Bohlen, and president and owner of the Krupp concern. The Prosecutors representing the Soviet Union, the French Republic, and the United Kingdom unanimously opposed inclusion of Alfried Krupp. This is not said in criticism of them or their judgment. The necessity of limiting the number of defendants was considered by representatives of the other three nations to preclude the addition of Alfried Krupp. Immediately upon service of the Indictment, learning the serious condition of Krupp von Bohlen, the United States again called a meeting of Prosecutors and proposed an amendment to include Alfried Krupp. Again the proposal of the United States was defeated by a vote of 3 to 1. If now the Tribunal shall exercise its discretion to excuse from trial the one indicted member of the Krupp family, one of the chief purposes of the United States will be defeated and it is submitted that such a result is not “in the interests of justice.”
The United States respectfully submits that no greater disservice to the future peace of the world could be done than to excuse the entire Krupp family and the armament enterprise from this Trial in which aggressive war making is sought to be condemned. The “interests of justice” cannot be determined without taking into account justice to the men of four generations whose lives have been taken or menaced by Krupp munitions and Krupp armament, and those of the future who can feel no safety if such persons as this escape all condemnation in proceedings such as this.
While of course the United States cannot, without the concurrence of one other Power indict a new defendant, it can under the Charter alone oppose this motion. The United States respectfully urges that if the favor now sought by Krupp von Bohlen is to be granted, it be upon the condition that Alfried Krupp be substituted or added as a defendant so that there may be a representative of the Krupp interests before the Tribunal.
It may be suggested that bringing in a new defendant would result in delay. Admitting, however, that a delay which cannot exceed a few days may be occasioned, it is respectfully suggested that the precise day that this Trial will start is a less important consideration than whether it is to fail of one of its principal purposes. The American Prosecution staff has been by long odds the longest and farthest away from home in this endeavor. On personal as well as public interest consideration it deplores delay. But we think the future as well as the contemporary world cannot fail to be shocked if, in a trial in which it is sought to condemn aggressive war making, the Krupp industrial empire is completely saved from condemnation.
The complete trial brief of the United States on Krupp von Bohlen with copies of the documents on which his culpability is asserted will be made available to the Tribunal if it is desired as evidence concerning him and Alfried Krupp and the Krupp concerns.
Respectfully submitted:
| /s/ | ROBERT H. JACKSON | |
| Chief of Counsel for the United States of America |
12 November 1945
British War Crimes Executive (E.S.)
12 November 1945
To: The International Military Tribunal.
The British Chief Prosecutor has had the opportunity of considering the application of the Defending Counsel to the accused GUSTAV KRUPP VON BOHLEN UND HALBACH:
| 1) | that the proceedings against this accused be deferred until he is again fit for trial; |
| 2) | at any rate, that the accused be not tried in his absence. |
The British Chief Prosecutor opposes this application for the following reasons:
| i) | The medical position is that as far as can be foreseen the said defendant will never again be fit for trial, and therefore if he is not tried in his absence, he will not be tried at all. |
| ii) | Although in an ordinary case it is undesirable that a defendant should be tried when he is unable to comprehend the charges made against him, or to give instruction for his defence, there are special considerations which apply to this case and make it essential for the Defendant Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach to be tried in his absence. |
| iii) | As this is a case of conspiracy, the British Prosecutor submits that all the evidence directly concerned with the actions and speeches of the said defendant and the operations of Fried. Krupp A.G. would be evidence against the remaining defendants, if the Prosecution establishes a prima facie case: |
| a) that the conspiracy existed; | |
| b) that the said defendant was a party to the conspiracy. | |
| Such prima facie case is clearly indicated in the Indictment lodged with the Tribunal and the evidence against the present defendant set out in the American Answer to this Application. | |
| iv) | If this submission of the British Chief Prosecutor is correct and this evidence can and will be given in Court, then it is at least arguable that it is preferable for the said defendant to be represented so that his lawyer can deal with such evidence to the best of his ability. |
| v) | It is a matter of common knowledge of which the Court may take cognisance that the business of Fried. Krupp A.G. is a vast organisation. There are, therefore, many sources within the Krupp firm from which the defending Advocate can obtain information which will enable him to deal with the allegations contained in the American Answer. If the Defendant Gustav Krupp is not retained in the list of defendants, there will be no advocate so well qualified to deal with those allegations on behalf of the other defendants, against whom they will still be preferred. |
| vi) | In the circumstances of this trial the kernel of the case for the prosecution is that a number of conspirators have agreed and worked together for the purpose of waging aggressive war and causing untold misery to the World. The public interest, that the defendant who is responsible for the preparation of armaments on the one hand, and the utilisation on arms production, of prisoners of war and forced labour, including detainees from Concentration Camps on the other, is one of “the interests of justice” within Article 12 of the Charter. |
| vii) | Finally, it is earnestly desired that the wishes of the Tribunal as publicly announced at Berlin on the 18th October that the trial should open on the appointed day, namely, 20th November be realised and carried into execution. The British Delegation is strongly opposed to any postponement. |
| /s/ | HARTLEY SHAWCROSS | |
| British Chief Prosecutor |
Nuremberg, 13 November 1945
MEMORANDUM
by the French Delegation concerning the matter of Krupp which was discussed at the meeting of 12 November 1945
France is formally opposed to dropping the firm of Krupp from the Trial since the other prosecutors do not contemplate the possibility of preparing at this time a second trial directed against the big German industrialists.
France objects therefore to a simple severance.
The remaining possibilities are either the trial of Krupp Sr. in absentia or the substitution of Krupp Jr. in his father’s place and stead.
The trial of an old man who is about to die and who is not before the Court is difficult in itself.
France would prefer to substitute his son against whom there are serious charges.
For simple reasons of expediency, France requests that there be no delay in excess of the delay that will result in all probability from the motions of the Defense.
If the Tribunal denies these motions of the Defense, the Trial of Krupp Sr. should take place in his absence.
However, this is in our opinion the lesser of two evils.
| /s/ | DUBOST |
Nuremberg, 14 November 1945
ADDITIONAL MEMORANDUM
We consider the trial of KRUPP, the father, as impossible under the circumstances. The trial of an old, dying man, absent from the dock, cannot take place.
We wish that the son be prosecuted. There are serious charges against him.
We had requested, so far, that he be prosecuted without any delay arising in the Trial therefrom.
The reasons of opportunity which had induced us to adopt this attitude are no longer so imperative since the Soviet Delegation has concurred in Mr. Jackson’s thesis.
Consequently we no longer raise any objection and we concur ourselves in this thesis.
| The Deputy-Delegate of | ||
| The French Government | ||
| in the Prosecution of | ||
| The International Military Tribunal | ||
| /s/ | CH. DUBOST | |
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
— against —
HERMANN WILHELM GÖRING, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
ON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the defendant, Gustav Krupp von Bohlen, for a postponement of the proceedings against him;
IT IS ORDERED that the application for postponement be, and the same hereby is, granted;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the charges in the indictment against Gustav Krupp von Bohlen shall be retained upon the docket of the Tribunal for trial hereafter, if the physical and mental condition of the defendant should permit.
BY THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
| /s/ | GEOFFREY LAWRENCE | |
| President. |
Dated this 15th day
of November, 1945.
ATTEST:
/s/ WILLIAM L. MITCHELL
General Secretary.
MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE UNITED STATES CHIEF OF COUNSEL TO THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
The United States, by its Chief of Counsel, respectfully shows:
The order of the Tribunal, that “The charges in the Indictment against Gustav Krupp von Bohlen shall be retained upon the docket of the Tribunal for trial hereafter, if the physical and mental condition of the defendant should permit,” requires the United States to make clear its attitude toward subsequent trials, which may have been misapprehended by the Tribunal, in order that no inference be drawn from its silence.
The United States never has committed itself to participate in any Four Power trial except the one now pending. The purpose of accusing organizations and groups as criminal was to reach, through subsequent and more expeditious trials before Military Government or military courts, a large number of persons. According to estimates of the United States Army, a finding that the organizations presently accused are criminal organizations would result in the trial of approximately 130,000 persons now held in the custody of the United States Army; and I am uninformed as to those held by others. It has been the great purpose of the United States from the beginning to bring into this one trial all that is necessary by way of defendants and evidence to reach the large number of persons responsible for the crimes charged without going over the entire evidence again. We, therefore, desire that it be a matter of record that the United States has not been, and is not by this order, committed to participate in any subsequent Four Power trial. It reserves freedom to determine that question after the capacity to handle one trial under difficult conditions has been tested.
Respectfully submitted:
| /s/ | ROBERT H. JACKSON | |
| Chief of Counsel for the United States |
Certified a true copy:
/s/ R. L. MORGAN
Major, GSC
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
— against —
HERMANN WILHELM GÖRING, et al.,
Defendants.
TO THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL:
Upon the Indictment and motion of Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, the answers thereto and all proceedings had therein, the Committee of Prosecutors created under the Charter hereby designates Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach as a defendant and respectfully moves that the Indictment be amended by adding the name of Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach as a defendant and by the addition of appropriate allegations in reference to him in the Appendix A thereof. It also moves that the time of Alfried Krupp be shortened from thirty days to 2 December 1945. For this purpose, the Committee of Prosecutors adopts and ratifies the Answer filed on behalf of the United States on 12 November 1945 in response to the Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach motion, and the motion made by Robert H. Jackson in open Court on behalf of the United States of America, the Soviet Union and the Provisional Government of France. This motion is authorized by a resolution adopted at a meeting of the Committee of Prosecutors held 16 November 1945.
| /s/ | POKROVSKY | |
| For the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics | ||
| /s/ | F. DE MENTHON | |
| For the Provisional Government of France | ||
| /s/ | ROBERT H. JACKSON | |
| For the United States of America |
16 November 1945
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
— against —
HERMANN WILHELM GÖRING, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
ON CONSIDERATION of the motion to amend the indictment by adding the name of Alfried Krupp;
IT IS ORDERED that the motion be, and the same hereby is, rejected.
BY THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
| /s/ | GEOFFREY LAWRENCE | |
| President. |
Dated this 17th day
of November, 1945.
ATTEST:
/s/ WILLIAM L. MITCHELL
General Secretary.
| Prosecution | |
| International Military Tribunal | |
| FRENCH DELEGATION | |
| Annex 13 | |
| The Delegate of the Provisional | |
| Government of the French Republic | |
| of the Prosecution to the | |
| International Military Tribunal | |
| to | |
| The Members of the International | |
| Military Tribunal | |
| Nuremberg, 20 November 1945 |
I have the honor to inform you that the decision rendered by you on 17 November at 1500 hours, to reject the motion signed the 16th by Mr. Justice JACKSON, Colonel POKROVSKY and M. de MENTHON cannot reject the declaration contained, according to which “The Committee of the Prosecutors created according to the Charter, designates Alfried KRUPP VON BOHLEN UND HALBACH as a defendant” because this declaration has been made as the last resort, under Article 14 b of the Charter.
Accordingly, Alfried KRUPP VON BOHLEN UND HALBACH is specifically designated as a major war criminal.
Consequently, I have the honor to inform you that the following declaration has been published by the Chief Prosecutors representing Great Britain and the Government of the French Republic:
“The Prosecutors representing the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic, and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics having agreed in the designation of Alfried KRUPP as a major war criminal under Article 14 b of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, the French and British Delegations are now engaged in the examination of the cases of other leading German industrialists, as well as certain other major war criminals, with a view to their attachment with Alfried KRUPP, in an indictment to be presented at a subsequent trial.”
We will let you know of this new indictment as soon as it is established.
| For the Delegate | ||
| /s/ | CHARLES DUBOST | |
| to: | 4-The Members of the I.M.T. |
| 1-General Secretary of the I.M.T. | |
| 3-The Members of the Prosecution (for information) | |
| 2-Files |
Schwaig, 5 November 1945
TO: The International Military Tribunal.
As defense counsel for the accused Julius Streicher I should like to request that it be considered whether the time of commencement of the Trial of the major war criminals fixed for 20 November could not be postponed to a later date. My reasons for this request are as follows:
It is not possible for me properly to prepare the defense of the accused Streicher by 20 November 1945, nor especially to work through all the relevant papers and documents which are in the possession of the Court nor to produce the evidence which the accused proposes to submit nor to discover or cause to be discovered the witnesses named by him. Therefore I propose a postponement of the commencement of the Trial for three or four weeks.
Furthermore I request that these documents, books, and other records in which reference is made by the Prosecution in support of the Indictment and which have been lodged with the Court, be put at my disposal for the purpose of inspection and thorough examination.
Lastly I take the liberty of suggesting that the films which have been taken of the atrocities in concentration camps and other criminal acts be shown to all the defense counsel of the persons accused as this seems necessary for the instruction of counsel for the defense.
| /s/ | Dr. MARX |