Chapter IV: Book 1: , Page 40, under II. In this affidavit Lohmann gives comparative (2)

COLONEL Y. V. POKROVSKY (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): My Lord, inasmuch as the Tribunal decided to have Dr. Siemers argue the point which was expressed by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe and other prosecutors, I think it is my duty to name three documents to which our Prosecution object.

The Soviet Prosecution would like to object altogether to five documents. Two of them—I have in mind Documents Raeder-70 and 88—have already been included by my friend Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe in the list which has been given to the Tribunal. So all I have to do now is to name the three remaining numbers, so that Dr. Siemers would have it easier in answering all together. I name Documents Raeder-13, 27, and 83.

Document Raeder-13 is a record of a report of Captain Lohmann. There is an idea expressed in this report which I cannot call other than a mad and propagandist idea of a typical Nazi. The idea is that the aim of the Red Army is world revolution, and that the Red Army is really trying to incite world revolution. I consider that it would not be proper if such nightmares and politically harmful ideas were reflected in the documents which are to be admitted by the Tribunal.

My second objection is in connection with the Document Raeder-27. This is a record which was made by a voluntary reporter, Böhm, of an address of Hitler’s at Obersalzberg. The Tribunal already rejected Dr. Siemers’ application to include two documents pertaining to the same questions and emphasized the fact that the Tribunal does not wish to compare the authenticity of different documents pertaining to or dealing with the same question.

I consider that inasmuch as the Tribunal already has at its disposal among documents which were admitted two records dealing with Hitler’s address at Obersalzberg, therefore, there is no necessity to admit the third record of his speech, especially since in this third version there are altogether shameless, slanderous, and calumnious remarks against the Armed Forces of the Soviet Union and the leaders of the Soviet Government. Neither the Armed Forces of the Soviet Union nor we as representatives of the Soviet State would ever agree to have such remarks included in the record.

The third document is Document Raeder-83. Document 83 is an excerpt from the German _White Book_. Since the authenticity of this _White Book_ has already been questioned by Dr. Dubost, I consider it material which cannot be relied upon, and in particular with regard to the Document Raeder-83. There are several remarks, harmful to the Soviet Union, which have absolutely no political basis—that is, the passage pertaining to the relations between the Soviet Union and Finland. So on the grounds of such general political motives, I would ask the High Tribunal to exclude as evidence Document Raeder-83 from the list of documents which were presented to the Tribunal by Defense Counsel Siemers. Furthermore, strictly speaking, it is absolutely clear that this document is irrelevant. That is all I want to say.

DR. SIEMERS: May it please the Tribunal, I note to my regret that we are back at the beginning again in our debate about documents; for we are disputing about documents now which were not mentioned at all in the original debate concerning documents, which took place on 1 May. I had believed, however, that I could rely on this one principle, that at least those documents which at that time were not objected to would be considered granted. Now, however, I find that those documents which were not discussed at that time at all are under dispute. It is extremely difficult...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal thinks you are entirely in error in that, because it is obvious that a document which has not been translated cannot be finally passed on by the Prosecution or by the Tribunal, and the fact that the Prosecution does not object to it at that stage does not prevent it from objecting at a later stage when it has been translated.

DR. SIEMERS: There were some documents to which I was told that the Prosecution did not object, and with regard to them I believed at any rate that that was final, just as with reference to some documents...

THE PRESIDENT: I thought I had made myself clear. What I said was this: The Prosecution in objecting or not objecting to a document before it is translated does not in any way bind them not to object to it after it is translated. Is that clear?

DR. SIEMERS: Then I shall take these documents one by one. First of all, I would like to start with those documents which Colonel Pokrovsky...

THE PRESIDENT: No, no, Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal will not listen to these documents taken one by one. If they can be treated in groups they must be treated in groups. They have been treated in groups by Sir David, and I am not saying you must adhere exactly to the same groups, that the Tribunal is not proposing to hear each document one by one.

DR. SIEMERS: I beg your pardon. Then it is a misunderstanding. I wanted to discuss those documents at the beginning, because there are some things which are not clear and which were objected to by Colonel Pokrovsky. I did not realize that Colonel Pokrovsky mentioned the documents in groups. I believe he mentioned five documents—three of them individually—and I believe that, though I have not understood everything, I can deal with these individually mentioned documents one by one. However, I shall be glad to start with the group laid down by Sir David if that is to be dealt with first. Shall I first...

THE PRESIDENT: When you said you were going to deal with the documents one by one, you meant all the documents one by one? I am not suggesting that you...

DR. SIEMERS: No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: You can deal with Colonel Pokrovsky first if you like.

DR. SIEMERS: Colonel Pokrovsky has as his first objection Document Raeder-13. This deals with a document dated 1935. Certainly Colonel Pokrovsky can offer some objection to the contents of this document, but how a document can be classed as irrelevant just because a certain sentence allegedly contains propaganda is not quite clear to me. I believe I could find sentences in other documents which have been submitted during these past 6 months which might be interpreted in some way as propaganda. I cannot quite imagine that that is an objection, and I would like to remind the Tribunal that right at the beginning of the proceedings, when we were dealing with Austria, the Tribunal rejected an objection made by the Defense regarding a letter. The Defense objected because the author of the letter was available as a witness. Thereupon, the Tribunal, and justly so, decided that the letter was evidence. The only matter for debate is the probative value. The Tribunal admitted this document. And in connection with this I should like to mention that a lecture at a university which is set down in writing is a document. The lecture deals with the naval agreement, and I believe that therewith the relevancy...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, have you not made your point on Number 13? You said the majority of the thing is clearly relevant, though there is one sentence which may be alleged to be propaganda, and, therefore, the document ought not be struck out. Is that not your point?

DR. SIEMERS: No, I am saying that it is a document which has a bearing on the evidence used in this Trial, and the Soviet Prosecution cannot dispute it because it was a lecture given in 1935. I cannot at all understand the use of the word “propaganda” by Colonel Pokrovsky in connection with this document.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I do not understand what you say in the least. I thought I put the point you had made. I thought you made it clear that the document in itself was relevant and could not be rejected because it contained one sentence which was alleged propaganda. That is your point, and I shall want it stated in one or two sentences, and the Tribunal will consider it. I do not see why the time of the Tribunal should be taken up with a long argument about something else.

DR. SIEMERS: Colonel Pokrovsky secondly, if I understood the interpreter, objected to Document Number Raeder-27. In this instance we are concerned with the speech of Hitler at Obersalzberg on 22 August 1932. It is Exhibit Raeder-27. It is very hard for me to comment on this document since I do not understand the objections of Colonel Pokrovsky. It deals...

THE PRESIDENT: The objection was that there was no necessity for a third record of the speech. There were two records which you objected to, and he said there was no necessity for a third.

DR. SIEMERS: I would like to add to that then, Your Honor, that the Soviet Delegation does not agree with the Delegation of the United States. In the record at that time the representative of the American Delegation said that if any one had a better version of that speech, he should present it. Therefore, I agree with the opinion of the American Prosecution and I believe, aside from that, that not a word about the relevancy of a speech which was made shortly before the outbreak of the war is necessary.

Document Raeder-83 is the third document objected to by Colonel Pokrovsky. This contains the sixth session of the Supreme Council on 28 March 1940, the drafting of a resolution with the heading “Strictly Secret.” In this document the Supreme Council—that is, the constituents of the Allied leadership—agreed that the French and British Governments on Monday, 1 April, would tender a note to the Norwegian and Swedish Governments. The contents of this note is then given, and there is a reference to the point of view of vital interests, and it says there then the position of the neutrals would be considered by the Allies as one contrary to their vital interests, and that it would evoke an appropriate reaction.

Under Figure 1c of this document, it says:

“Any attempt by the Soviet Union which aimed at obtaining from
Norway a position on the Atlantic Coast would be contrary to the
vital interests of the Allies and would provoke the appropriate
reaction.”

THE PRESIDENT: You do not need to read the document, do you? I mean you can tell us what the substance of it is. It appears to be an objection to any further attack upon Finland, which would be considered by the Allies to be contrary to their vital interests. That is all.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, just this expression “vital interests” is the decisive one. I do not wish, as the Prosecution always seem to think, to bring up some sort of objection from the point of view of _tu quoque_. I want to show only what the situation was according to international law, and that at the same time when Admiral Raeder was entertaining certain thoughts regarding Norway, Greece, and so forth, the Allied agencies had the same thoughts and were basing these thoughts on the same concept of international law which, as I recently said, was upheld by Kellogg—namely that the right of self-preservation still exists. Now I can prove my point through these documents.

THE PRESIDENT: The point made against you by Sir David was that the document could not have come into the hands of the German authorities until after the fall of France.

DR. SIEMERS: Now I shall deal with the groupings designated by Sir David.

Sir David made certain fundamental statements. Regarding Document Numbers Raeder-28 and 29, he pointed out specifically that in one case they were the thoughts of General Gamelin and in the other case those of General Weygand, and that these ideas were not known to the Germans at that time since these documents were not yet in our hands. The latter point is correct. The concept and the plan of occupying Greece, of destroying Romanian oil wells, those thoughts were known to the Germans—namely, through their intelligence service. The Prosecution did not present the data of the German High Command which show these reports. Since I do not have these documents, I believe it would be just if I am given the possibility of presenting the actual facts which were known to Germany and in this way prove them. I have no other proofs. That it is agreeable to the Prosecution to deprive me of the documents which I need for the defense, I can understand; but the Prosecution must also understand the fact that I consider it important that those documents which are definite proof of certain plans remain at my disposal.

The charge has been made against Admiral Raeder that it was an aggressive war—a criminal war of aggression—to formulate plans for the occupation of Greece. Document Raeder-29 shows that General Weygand and General Gamelin on 9 September 1939 concern themselves with planning the occupation of neutral Salonika. So if this is the case, I cannot understand how one can point an accusing finger at Admiral Raeder, on the German side, for having concerned himself with such plans a year and half later. I believe, therefore, that these and similar documents must be granted me, for only from them can the military planning and the value of the military planning, or the objectionable side—that is the criminal side of the planning, be understood. The strategic thinking of the defendant can be understood only if one knows approximately what strategic thinking prevailed at the same time with the enemy. The strategic reasoning of Admiral Raeder was shut up in an airtight compartment but depended on the reports received about the strategic planning of the opposition. It is a reciprocal activity. This reciprocal activity is necessary for an understanding. Therefore, in view of this very essential point, I ask to be granted this kind of document since, as I have recently stated, I do not know how I can carry on my defense at all in the face of these grave accusations regarding Greece and Norway if all of my documents are stricken. I believe that I am understood correctly when I do not assert that we were cognizant of these documents. But Germany knew the contents of these documents, and I believe that is sufficient.

May it please the Tribunal, we are once again at Document Raeder-66 in Group A. This Document Raeder-66 is the opinion of Dr. Mosler, an expert in international law, about the Norwegian operation as judged from the standpoint of international law.

Since we are always talking about saving time in this courtroom, I would have my doubts about rejecting this article, for a refusal would force me to set forth the trend of thought point by point in detail, and I believe that it is much easier for the Tribunal, for the Prosecution and for me, if I submit general legal arguments in this connection.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, this is a document which is a matter of legal argument. If the Tribunal thinks it would be of any assistance to have the argument in documentary form, I willingly withdraw my objection to that. That is on quite a different project than the other one, and I want to help in any way I can.

While I am before the microphone: I did mention that there were two other documents that fall into the same group. Document Raeder-34 falls into Group B, and Document Raeder-48 into the Group E.

My Lord, I did mention 28 when I was addressing the Tribunal.

DR. SIEMERS: May it please the Tribunal, I do not wish to dispute Document Raeder-66, I have really done this just to ease the situation for everyone. The additional documents in this group are Raeder-101 to 107. I cannot say that this is a homogeneous group. One document deals with Norway, another deals with Belgium, a third deals with the Danube. The unity of this group escapes me. Basically these documents have this point in common: that, as I have already stated, a plan existed in the Allied General Staff, as well as in the German, and all were based on the tenet of international law regarding the right of self-preservation and vital interests.

In order to be brief at this point I should like to refer to Document Raeder-66 particularly, and to save time I ask that the quotations from this document be considered the basis for my remarks today on the right of self-preservation. I am referring to the quotations on Page 3 and Page 4 of this expert opinion. The legal situation is made very clear therein, and it is set forth very clearly in this expert opinion that, with regard to the question of the occupation of Norway, we are not concerned with whether the Allies had actually landed in Norway but only whether such a plan existed, that we are not concerned with the fact whether Norway agreed or did not agree. The danger of a change of neutrality according to international law gives one the right to use some compensating measure or to attack on one’s own accord; and this basic tenet has been maintained in the entire literature which is quoted in this document, and to which I shall refer later in my defense speech.

Out of group 101 to 107, I have to mention Document Raeder-107 especially. Document Raeder-107 is not concerned at all with the _White Books_ as the other documents are. 107 is an affidavit by Schreiber. Schreiber was naval attaché at Oslo from October 1939 onward. From the beginning I have said that I needed Schreiber as a witness. In the meantime, I dispensed with Schreiber because even though we tried for weeks, we could not find him. I discussed this matter with Sir David and with Colonel Phillimore. I was advised that there would be no objection on this formal point since Schreiber suddenly and of his own accord reappeared again.

If, as the Prosecution wish, this piece of evidence is taken from me—namely, the affidavit of Schreiber about the reports which Admiral Raeder received from Oslo and, in addition to that, the documents from which the authenticity of these reports may be shown—then I have no evidence for this entire question at all. Besides, Schreiber was in Oslo during the occupation and he has commented in his affidavit with regard to the behavior of the Navy and the efforts of Admiral Raeder in connection with the regrettable civil administration of Terboven. Therefore, I am asking the High Tribunal to grant this affidavit to me or to grant Schreiber as a witness so that he can testify personally. This latter course, however, would take up more time. I have limited my evidence through witnesses to such a degree that I believe that, in view of the entire span of 15 years with which we are dealing, in the case of the Defendant Raeder at least, such an affidavit should be granted me.

With regard to Group B, I should like to refer to the remarks which I have already made. As far as I can see, the group seems to be thoroughly heterogeneous, but I believe they are all documents taken from the _White Book_. The same ideas should be applied which I have recently expressed to the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: I think Sir David recognized that there was a certain degree of lack of identity in these groups, but he suggested that they all fall into geographical groups: one group, the Low Countries; one group, Norway; one group, Greece; and one group, the Caucasus and the Danube—which agrees with “E.” That is what he said. Could you not deal with them in those geographical groups?

DR. SIEMERS: Very well.

I have already talked about Norway and in that connection I therefore refer to the remarks I have already made. I have already briefly mentioned Greece. I would like to say that there was a double accusation made: One, that neutral ships were sunk—namely, neutral Greek ships, and secondly, the accusation of an aggressive war against Greece—that is, the occupation of all Greece.

With regard to the last point, I have already made a few statements. Dealing with the Greek merchantmen I would like to say only that in this case the action and attitude of the defendant appears justified in that he received reports which coincided with the documents which were found a month later in France. The same reports were received by Raeder when he expressed his views to Hitler. I would like to prove that these reports which came to him through the intelligence service were not invented by the intelligence service but were actual facts. The same applies to the oil regions. Plans existed to destroy the Romanian oil wells and furthermore there was a plan to destroy the Caucasian oil wells; both had the object of hurting the enemy; in the one case Germany alone—as far as Romania was concerned—and in the second case Germany and Russia, because at that time Russia was on friendly terms with Germany.

These plans are—and this is shown by the documents—in the same form as all other documents presented by the Prosecution. These documents as well, in their entirety, are “top secret,” “personal,” “confidential.” Just as the Prosecution have always said, “Why did you do everything secretly? That is suspicious.” These documents contain ideas based on strategic planning just as do the documents presented by the Prosecution. That is something which arises from the nature of war and which is not meant to be an accusation on my part, nor should it be construed as an accusation against Admiral Raeder by the Prosecution.

Then the group of Ribbentrop documents follows. I can say only what I said recently. And as I glance at it cursorily now, the documents in the Ribbentrop document book are not as complete as they are here. Therefore, I believe it is important to take the documents and to investigate their complete content from the point of view of Raeder rather than the point of view of Ribbentrop. That perhaps may have taken place, as the High Tribunal suggested the other day. Then I believe, however, it is not an objection which can be used by the Prosecution to say that in the case of Ribbentrop they were partially admitted and partially rejected. For some documents which were granted Ribbentrop were refused me.

Then we turn to Group “E,” and that is _tu quoque_. I believe I have already spoken sufficiently on that point just recently. I dispute it again and I cannot understand why the Prosecution will not agree with me on that. I do not wish to object. I am not saying _tu quoque_; I am only saying that there is strategic planning which is carried on in every army and there are tenets in international law which applied to the Allies exactly in the same way as to us, and I beg to be granted these possibilities of comparison in foreign politics.

I believe herewith that I have dealt with all points so far as it is possible for me to define my position in such a brief period of time with regard to about 50 documents, and I am asking the High Tribunal not to make my work more difficult by refusing these documents to me.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will carefully consider these documents and your arguments.

The Tribunal will now adjourn.

[_The Tribunal adjourned until 17 May 1946, at 1000 hours._]

ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-SECOND DAY
Friday, 17 May 1946

_Morning Session_

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal have given careful and prolonged attention to the consideration of the documents offered by Dr. Siemers on behalf of the Defendant Raeder; and they, therefore, do not wish the documents which they propose to admit to be read because they have already read them all.

I will now deal with the documents individually.

Document 66 is admitted for the purposes of argument, and not as evidence; Document 101 is denied; Documents 102 to 105 are admitted; Document 106 is denied; Document 107 is admitted; Document 39 is denied; Document 63 is admitted; Document 64 is denied; Document 99 is denied; Document 100 is admitted; Documents 102 to 107 are admitted; Document 38 is denied; Document 50 is denied; Document 55 is denied; Document 58 is denied; Documents 29, 56, 57, 60, and 62 are denied. I should have included in that group Document 28, which is also denied. Documents 31, 32, 36, 37, and 39 are denied; Document 41 is admitted; Document 99 has already been denied, and Document 101 has already been denied; Document 59 is admitted; Document 68 is denied; Document 70 is denied; Document 72 is denied; Document 74 is denied; Document 75 is admitted; Document 77 is admitted; Document 79 is admitted; Document 80 is admitted; Document 84 is admitted; Document 85, which is on Page 82 of Volume V, is admitted; Document 87 is denied; Document 88 is admitted; Document 91 is admitted; Document 13 is admitted; Document 27 is admitted.

The Prosecution may, if they wish it, apply to cross-examine the witness who made that document.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Francis Biddle, Member for the United States): That is Admiral Böhm.

THE PRESIDENT: Admiral Böhm, yes.

Document 83 is admitted; Document 34 is admitted; Document 48 is denied.

Have I gone too quickly for you, Dr. Siemers? You have the last few?

DR. SIEMERS: Yes, I heard everything.

MR. DODD: Mr. President, yesterday afternoon the Tribunal asked that we ascertain the origins, if possible, of Document 1014-PS. Some question was raised about it by Dr. Siemers. It is Exhibit USA-30.

I have had a search made, and I have some information that we are prepared to submit concerning this document. I should like to point out that 1014-PS and 798-PS and L-3 are documents all concerning this same speech made at Obersalzberg on 22 August 1939. They were offered in evidence by Mr. Alderman of the American staff on the 26th day of November 1945.

I should like to point out that L-3, to which Dr. Siemers made reference yesterday, was offered only for identification, as the record shows for the proceedings of that day on the 26th of November, and has received the mark Exhibit Number USA-28 for identification only. Mr. Alderman pointed out, as appears in the record, that he was not offering it in evidence, that it was a paper which came into our hands originally through the services of a newspaperman, and that later on the Documents 798-PS and 1014-PS were found among captured documents. They referred to the same speech in Obersalzberg. Mr. Alderman offered these two at that time.

Now Document 798-PS, Exhibit Number USA-29, and Document 1014-PS, Exhibit Number USA-30, were both found by the forces of the United States in this fashion:

They had been taken from the OKW headquarters in Berlin, and in the course of various journeys in those days they finally arrived at one place and were stored, it now appears, at various places by the OKW under the control of a General Winter of the German forces; and they were transported in three railway trains to Saalfelden in the Austrian Tyrol. Subsequently, General Winter ordered that all documents in his possession be turned over to the Allied forces and they were. These particular documents, together with some other papers, were turned over by General Winter and members of his staff at that time; and on the 21st day of May 1945, they were removed from Saalfelden where they were under the control of General Winter and taken to the Third U.S. Army Document Center at Munich. While at Munich they were sorted and cataloged by Department G-2 Supreme Headquarters of the American Expeditionary Force with the assistance of clerks from the OKW and OKH. On the 16th of June 1945 these documents, together with others, were removed on six trucks from the headquarters of the Third Army at Munich and were taken to the U.S. Group Control Council Number 32 at Seckenheim, Germany, which was located in the former offices of the I.G. Farben Company, and were placed on shelves on the third floor of the building and kept under guard. Between the 16th of June 1945 and the 30th of August 1945, the task of collecting, sorting, assembling and cataloging these documents was carried out under the supervision of the British Colonel Austin, with personnel of the Supreme Headquarters and the G-2 Document Center of the G-2 Operational Intelligence Section, 6889 Berlin Document Section, and the British Enemy Document Unit, and the British Military Intelligence Research Section. Beginning on the 5th day of July 1945, and continuing until the 30th of August 1945, these documents were screened at that place by members of the staff of the United States Chief Counsel. Lieutenant Margolies, who is here in the courtroom and a member of our staff, personally picked these documents out of your file 798-PS and 1014-PS from the OKW captured files, brought them to Nuremberg, and lodged them in the document room where they have been kept under strict security ever since.

Now, that is the history of these two documents about which Dr. Siemers raised some question yesterday—a considerable question I might say—and inferred there was something strange about their contents. I think the story which I have given in the form of a statement over the signature of Lieutenant Commander Hopper clearly establishes the source and where they have been ever since; and I think it is only fair to say that, since Dr. Siemers saw fit to point out that this language sounded extremely harsh and was attributed to Hitler, these documents were offered to show these people were actually talking about aggressive war. The reading of the three documents by the Tribunal will clearly show they are all in agreement in substance; of course, there are differences in phraseology, but the important thing and purpose for which they were offered was to show that these people were talking aggressive war. I might say I am not surprised to find my friend is sensitive about the remark, but I think the unanswered proof in the case thus far shows that not only were these things said but they were done.

M. DUBOST: May it please the Court. No doubt it is a mistake in translation. We understood 106 had been rejected the first time and admitted the second time in the Group 102 to 107.

THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid it was my mistake. I did say that the Group 102 to 107 were admitted; but I have also said 106 was rejected, and it is rejected. It is entirely my mistake. 106 is rejected.

M. DUBOST: 106 is thrown out and 102 to 107 are also rejected, are they?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I will state the exact numbers: 102, 103, 104, 105, and 107 are admitted.

M. DUBOST: Very good. Mr. President, we want to offer further explanations on 102 to 107 during the course of the proceedings.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, may I say a few words concerning the statement made by Mr. Dodd?

I had no doubts, and I certainly have no doubt now, that since these documents were found they have been handled very correctly and Mr. Dodd spoke only about that. I believe it is important to establish: Whether one can determine the connection these documents had with other documents, because in that way one can see whether these were documents belonging to a certain adjutant. For instance, were they together with the Hossbach papers or together with the Schmundt file? If, for instance, the documents were with the Schmundt documents it is probable that they belonged to the adjutant.

THE PRESIDENT: That all goes to the weight of the document, does it not? No doubt, a document which is signed has more weight than a document which is not signed. All those matters the Tribunal will take into account when considering the documents, but the admissibility of the document depends upon its being a German document found and captured.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I wanted to say this only because it is unpleasant to have the American Delegation misunderstand my motion concerning the document. I make no charges concerning the manner in which the document was found, I merely say that it is undecided among which papers it was found. It came to my attention that Mr. Dodd treated the three documents concerned in quite the same way, whereas Mr. Alderman on Page 188 of the record (Volume II, Page 286), states that one of these three documents, L-3, was evidently not in order because of its doubtful origin. And therefore he withdrew the document.

May I then, if it please the Court, continue with the examination of the Defendant Raeder?

[_Turning to the defendant._] Admiral, we have a few final questions concerning the conspiracy. I believe it will not take much time. I ask you to look at the Document C-155. That is Exhibit GB-214, in Document