ADr. Juergen E. von Klenck.
QAnd what is your present address?
AKoenigstein, Adelheidstrasse 5.
QAnd your present profession?
AI am a laboratory chemist.
QAnd what was your address before the German collapse in 1945?
ANeustadt an der Haardt.
QAnd what was your position just before 1945?
AChemist for the I. G. Farben Industry in Ludwigshafen.
QDr. von Klenck, you speak English very fluently, do you not?
AYes.
QI would make the suggestion that during the direct examination, with your permission, the examination be in English, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well. BY MR. SPRECHER:
QYou may take off your earphones then and later, during the cross examination, you can revert to the German.
Dr. von Klenck, you have before you a copy of Exhibit 619 which is our Document NI 10557?
AYes, K've got it.
QAnd have you discussed certain corrections or amplifications you desire to make in this affidavit with Mr. Stevens or Mr. Charmatz, either yesterday or this morning?
AI did this morning. They have been laid down.
QWould you please point them out, giving the lines, if possible and the page numbers so that we can follow you?
AYes, I can do soo but I've only got a German copy here so I must read the text in German.
QI've given you an English copy that was handed to me by Mr. Stevens. Will you continue now?
AI made the following changes in the second paragraph of the statement, after the sentence: "The field of chemical warfare agents was turned over to this Ministry and Special Committee C was formed for this purpose."
The following sentence is to be added: "The Special Committee C was a sub-committee of the main committee Powder and Explosives which was incorporated in the Bureau Schieber in the Ministry Speer."
May I add something which refers to the translation? In German I had said in this same sentence: Der Sonderauschuss C war eine untergruppe des Hauptausechumis Fulver in Sprenphffe, der amtsgruppe Schieber in Ministerium Speer angegtichert war.
I think the word "incorpartated" would better be charged to "attached".
QThank you. Proceed.
AThe sentence: "The Special Committee C had to llok after the distribution of production and to send reports on this to the Speer Ministry" which is in the third paragraph of the first page, second sentence, it is to be changed in "The Special Committee C had to take care of the distribution of production..." Oh, no. I beg your pardon. I made a mistake. Has to be changed into the sentence: "Within the field of fixed production tasks, the Special Committee C channeled the available raw materials to those end uses which were considered most important by the Armaments Ministry and by the army, and wrote reports about it to the Ministry Speer."
In the second paragraph of page 2, in the first sentence, the word "Fog", standing just before the word "N-Stuff" should be omitted.
I made an error in calling Professor Schumann, Professor Schuhmacher. This Schuhmacher has to be altered into Schumann.
In the last but one paragraph, first sentence....
QIs that still on that page or.....
AThat is page 2. Still page 2. There is a sentence which ends with the words "hiring and care of the workers in the Sarin plant". I wanted to add the words "which was to be built."
"In speaking about matters of chemical warfare with acquaintances of mine, I heard that Goldschmidt was no partner of Lonal" which refers to page 3, second item under "operating firm" so that those words and perhaps Goldschmidt could be omitted.
"I further learned that Cyanogen choloride has never been produced." This refers to the last but one item on the same page. "The production of twenty-five tons per month was planned."
That's all.
QThat concluded your amplifications or corrections?
ATo this statement, yes.
QNo further questions for the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT:The defense may cross examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. GATHER (Defense Counsel for defendant Ambros):
QWitness, in regard to your affidavit NI 10557, Exhibit 619, you have just given us a supplementation to the sentence, and I quote:
"Special Committee C had to look after the distrubtion of production."
May I ask you to re-read your new formulation in the German language?
A "Within the framework of the fixed production tasks, Special Committee C channeled the available raw materials into the end productions considered most important by the Armaments Ministry and the Army."
QThank you.
Witness, is it correct if, with regard to this formulation, I assume that the main task of the Special Committee C practically consisted of reducing the demands from Mun. 6 to a degree which could be fulfilled?
AYes. That is correct according to the state of affairs.
QThank you.
Could you perhaps state examples for how this Special Committee C amde such distributions and when it did?
AThere was a great scarcity of chlorine. Because of this shortage of chlorine, we had to consider what production could be carried out and whether certain productions should not be stopped in favor of other types.
QI see. Since you mentioned chlorine, can you tell me when such distribution regarding clorine was made?
AIn 1944.
QAnd why?
AFor instance, the continuation of work on Direct Lost was given up for this reason, among others, because the chlorine was urgently needed for the production of calcium hypochloride, a protective agent.
QProtective agent against what?
AAgainst Lost.
QAgainst Lost?
AYes.
QIf I can understand you correctly it was used as a protective agent against Lost which was feared from the enemy?
AYes. I cannot give the exact time, but I believe that this entire incident was decisively influenced by news according to which the Allies sent Lost to Africa or Italy - I don't know which.
QAnd then this shifting was made from war production to protective production?
AYes. And it seemed especially important to have a sufficient quantity of decontamination agents available.
QAnd who did that?
ASpecial Committee C, in collaboration with the OKH and the Armaments Ministry.
QThank you very much.
In your affidavit now supplemented, you are giving us a scheme how this Special Committee C was incorporated into the Armaments Ministry of Speer. In addition to this organizational formation, was there another military sector which was responsible for chemical warfare agents?
AFrom the military side, the Ordnance Office, Mun. 6, continued to be responsible for obtaining chemical warfare agents.
QWho was the responsible officer who dealt with chemical warfare agents?
AThe Ministerialrat Dr. Ehmann.
QAnd who was the responsible officer for war gasses?
ADoes this question refer to production or the use of the chemical warfare agents?
QI am referring to the use.
AAs far as I know, General Ochsner.
QI see, Ochsner. Do you perhaps know whether the defendant Ambros ever came into contact with General Ochsner?
AAs far as I know, never.
QDid he correspond with him?
AI cannot remember his having done so.
QAccording to your conviction is it surprising that the technician and the officer never met?
ASpecial Committee C actually handled something of the affairs of a technician, and military question such as the use of chemical warfare agents, did not concern the technical agents.
QThank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT:Is there to be any further cross examination?
There being no requests, have you any redirect?
MR. SPRECHER:No redirect, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT:The witness is excused.
Call your next witness.
MR. SPRECHER:Mr. President, that concludes the witnesses for the next few days, in any event, and with your permission, Mr. Dubois would like to go on with the presentation of the documents concerning Count I.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well. Mr. Dubois, will you indicate what books we will need? I think there is some confusion among the members of the Tribunal.
MR. DUBOIS:I'm sorry. 42 and 43.
THE PRESIDENT:Let us check now and see where we are.
Will our messenger see that the books in Judge Morris' office are brought in, and Judge Hebert's? Judge Merrill and I have our books.
DR. GIERLICHS:Mr. President, we were not prepared for the cross examination being finished so soon and we don't have our books here. Would it be possible to have a recess of a few minutes to got our document books?
THE PRESIDENT:Yes. How long do you suggest, Doctor? How long do you think it will take?
DR. GIERLICHS:I think five minutes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT:Make it ten.
We'll rise for ten minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL:The Tribunal is again in session.
Mr. DuBOIS: I might say that in connection with these documents there are a few minor variations between the English and the German books and between the books and the exhibits, and several days ago after consulting with Dr. Boettcher I got together with Dr. Gierlichs and Dr. Henze, and I think we have straightened all those out. Also in connection with these documents which will be introduced concerning Section F, I would like to call attention to the fact that some of the exhibits are copies of documents which were held in the files of the U.S. Department of Justice, and others are copies of documents which have been introduced in Congressional hearings, and still others are exemplified copies of documents introduced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in the case of Standard Oil Company of New Jersey against the Alien Property Custodian. In those cases or at least in most of those cases the Court in furnishing the exemplified copies attached both the English and the German versions, and it was more convenient to the document room to treat the whole thing as one exhibit, so that in some cases the German and the English books have both the German and English copies in it with the certificate of the court attached.
Now these documents relate to the way in which Farben used his cartel agreements in furtherance of the Nazi Program. In particular the proof will show, we believe, that Farben used the international cartel as an economic weapon for weakening other countries, particularly by crippling production and stifling scientific research. Activities of this type receive special emphasis in the United States, which was obviously the most highly-industrialized country, and the most outstanding example of the use of the cartel agreements for the purposes indicated in the United States is the relationships between Farben and the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, particularly with respect to synthetic gasoline and rubber. The first sixty documents out of about eighty do cuments which we have in these two books concern Farben's use of its international agreements with Standard Oil in the interest of the German war effort, and show how Farben acting in close cooperation with the Nazi Government used these agreements as part of the program of making the Wehrmacht all-powerful vis-a-vis all other countries including the United States.
In 1929 shortly after Farven had perfected its processes for the manufacture of synthetic gasoline, a series of agreements were concluded between Farben and Standard Oil. These agreements in 1929 are the first two documents in the document book.
THE PRESIDENT:You are speaking of Book XXXXII, I take it?
Mr. DuBOIS: XXXXII. I am sorry. The Prosecution offers as its Exhibit 942 NI-10550 appearing on the first page of both the English and German document books. This was an agreement of 9 November 1929 between Farben and the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, Standard I.G. and Standard Oil Company. The document, I might say, as I have already indicated to the defense, as introduced -- the exhibit has about 100 pages of schedules which we have omitted from both the English and the German books. We don't believe they are in any way relevant, but if the Defense feels that any portion of them are relevant after looking at them, they can, of course, readiest translation.
Just for the record I might say that this agreement was signed for Farben by Schmitz and von Knieriem. It doesn't appear in the English book.
The next document is NI-10430 which is the Division of Fiels Agreement concluded at the same time between Farben and Standard. That appears on page 23 of the English and 26 of the German. Now this document again is signed by Schmitz and von Knieriem, but it has attached the four-party agreement. This was accidentally included in this book, and the end of the Division of Fields Agreement is page 27 of the English and 27 of the German. From then on the document is the same as the preceding document.
Now these two agreements in effect provided that throughout -- I am sorry. This second agreement, NI-10430, we offer as Exhibit 943. These two agreements in effect provided that throughout the entire world, including the United States, Standard Oil recognized Farben's priority in the so-called chemical business and that except within Germany Farben reco gnized Standard Oil's priority in the so-called oil business; and it will be noted from these documents that provision was made for the ex change of experience.
I direct your attention particularly to Article 10 of NI-10550, the first document, which appears on page 17 of the English and page 19 of the German.
Now pursuant to the Division of Fields Agreement which is the second document, new chemical processes discovered by Standard Oil were to be turned over to Farben unless they bore a close relation to the oil business, and Farben entered into a reciprocal obligation with respect to development relating to the oil or natural gas business.
The next document, NI-10432, is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 944.
It is a letter from the defendants Schmitz and von Knieriem to the pre sident of Standard Oil.
This letter deals with what is described as a spirit of mutual helpfulness with which these parties entered into these agreements.
I direct particular attention to the second paragraph of the letter which appears on page 52 of the English and page 41 of the German.
In the next year in 1930 -
THE PRESIDENT:Pardon me. That is Exhibit 944?
Mr. DuBOIS: Yes. Mr. Sprecher points out that I may have misstated the state of what this document was.
It is a letter from Teagle to Schmitz and von Knieriem.
I may have said the reverse.
THE PRESIDENT:You had it just the reverse. We have it before us.
Mr. DuBOIS: I am sorry.
The next document is an agreement entered into between Farben and Standard in the following year 1930.
It is NI-10433 which appears on page 56 of the English and 45 of the German, and which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 945. This is a so-called Jasco agreement.
Its purpose is stated rather briefly, we believe, on page 58 of the English, page 46 of the German book under paragraph D that: "It is the desire and intention of the parties to develop and exploit their new chemical processes jointly on a basis of equality (50-50) and they, therefore, obligate themselves to proceed as follows:" and I call special attention to Article 2 appearing on page 62 of the English book, page 48 of the German, relating to the question of the development of new chemical processes and the requirement that each party acquaint the other with technical and commercial details relating thereto, and also making provision for investigating, testing and developing those processes by Jasco. Both parties to the agreements apparently realized that there was considerable overlapping between the oil and the chemical field ant that borderline cases would constantly arise. The nature of these arrangements is well summarized in the next document, NI-10431, which we offer as Prosecution Exhibit 946 appearing at page 73 of the English and page 55 of the German. This was a letter from Howard of Standard Oil explaining the Division of Fields Agreements, and I call particular attention to the second paragraph on page 74 and also to the paragraph numbered 1 on page 74 of the English and 56 of the German, paragraph number 1 reads:
"The assumption is that the I.G. are going to stay out of the oil business proper and we are going to stay out of the chemical business insofar" -
THE PRESIDENT:Mr. DuBOIS, the confusion may be due to the fact that in my index book that document was indexed as page 73, and it is 74. Perhaps there may be an error in the -
Mr. DuBOIS: Well, you see, the 73, Your Honor, refers to really the exemplification by the court, but it is marked as the first page of the document, and the actual first page of the letter is on page 74.
"The assumption is that the I.G. are going to stay out of the oil business proper and we are going to stay out of the chemical business insofar as that has no bearing on the oil business."
On page 75, the next page of the English, 57 of the German, under paragraph number 5:
"Subject to the above limitations, the general theory of the agreement is that chemical developments which are more closely related to the oil business than to the outside chemical business remain in control of Standard with I.G. participating in some manner to be agreed upon at the time with respect to each development, whereas developments which are more nearly akin to the outside chemical industry than to the then existing business of Standard pass to the control of I.G. with suitable participation by Standard."
I would also like to call attention to the last paragraph of this letter which appears on page 77 of the English and 58 of the German which reads:
"We have lived under the I.G. relationship for about one-half of the total term, considering the fact that the relationship actually began about two years before the contracts were actually executed. The chemical side of the arrangement has been satisfactory to both sides and profitable to us at least through this period. The arrangement is one which necessarily requires real good will on both sides."
This is Howard writing in July, 1936. It apparently was also agreed on both sides on the development of synthetic rubber processes field within the scope of the Jasco agreement and that new developments in that field should be turned over to Jasco.
The first document in this connedtion is NI-10434 appearing on page 81 of the English and page 62 of the German which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 947. I call special attention to the paragraph be ginning at the bottom of page 82 of the English and 63 of the German, reading:
"The interest of the Standard Oil Company (New Jersey) in the Buna processes dates back to the original agreement of 1929 between I.G. and Jersey. Pursuant to this general agreement the parties undertook to cooperate in the production of certain new products from oil and gas raw materials, and a jointly owned American corporation was organized to administer the joint interests of the parties in these fields. The Buna synthetic rubber development (to the extent the product was made from oil and natural gas raw materials) was recognized by both parties as coming within the field of this corporation."
The next document, the affidavit by Oskar Loehr, the Prosecution is omitting and will not offer into evidence in view of our previous statement. It appears on page 88 of the English and 67 of the German.
Now the next four documents relate particularly to the understanding between the parties with respect to the scope of the Jasco Agreement. The first document, NI-10450, which appears on page 94 of the English and 78 of the German, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 948, is a letter from Hopkins to Standard Oil, to Russel of Standard, on 9 May 1940. It will be noted that this memorandum indicates that although general cooperation between Standard and Farben had gone on for several years, both sides apparently treating Buna as being within the Jasco field, the official bringing of Buna into Jasco was postponed for what is described as "political reasons". That appears at page 96 of the English and 79 of the German.
The next document which we offer is NI-11249 appearing on page 98 of the English and 82 of the German. It is a letter of November, 1941, from Hopkins of Standard Oil to Kenyon and Kenyon reciting the general history of the development of the Buna process in the United States. I call special attention to the third paragraph of the document.
THE PRESIDENT:That is Document No. --
Mr. DuBOIS: NI-11249.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, and will be Exhibit 949, is that correct?
Mr. DuBOIS: 949. I am sorry.
THE PRESIDENT:That's all right.
Mr. DuBOIS: We offer next in evidence NI-10576 which appears at page 99 of the English, 83 of the German. We offer this as Prosecution Exhibit 950. It is a memorandum for the Humble Company by Howard by Standard Oil not only indicating that both Standard and Farben regarded synthetic rubber as falling within the scope of Jasco, but also showing the way in which this position was used to prevent other companies such as Humble from proceeding independently with respect to synthetic rubber. I call special attention in this connection to the third paragraph of the letter in which it is pointed out that: "Humble is not, in fact, free to proceed independently with the butyl rubber development under the Mutualization Contract. The reason Humble cannot proceed" -
THE PRESIDENT:Would you give the page number to the translator, please?
Mr. DuBOIS: Beginning at the bottom of 99 of the English and 83 of the German.
"Humble is not, in fact, free to proceed independently with the butyl rubber development under the Mutualization Contract. The reason Humble cannot proceed under this contract is because Humble, along with all other Mutual Companies, consented to, and has for eleven years worked under and adopted, all the burdens and benefits of the 1929 agreement between Jersey and I.G. By this agreement Jersey acquired, for the benefit of the Mutual Companies, among other things, an interest in the chemical developments of I.G. based upon oil and gas as raw materials, and in return assumed the obligation to give the I.G. an interest in its own developments in the same chemical field."
The next document we offer is NI-10565 appearing on page 104 of the English, page 90 of the German. This is a memorandum -- we offer this as Prosecution Exhibit 951. This is a memorandum by Ringer of Farben concerning the arrangement which was entered into between Standard and Farben in order to prevent the patents in the Jasco field from being seized by enemy countries. This arrangement which will be referred to later was voided by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Now York. At this time we call attention particularly to the following provisions of the memorandum, the first paragraph which appears on page 105 of the English and 90 of the German:
"In view of the situation created by the outbreak of the war, a new arrangement was entered into between Standard and ourselves by which we endeavored to accomplish that our patents in the Jasco field would be safe from seizure by the enemy countries, and that our patents in the U.S.A. would as a precautionary measure be placed in safety."
And again on page 106 of the English and page 91 of the German it states next to the last paragraph toward the end?
"In the Hague Memorandum it is provided that for the purpose of such adjustment, should occasion arise, a new division of the countries should follow, a formulation which was necessary in view of a possible entrance into the war by the U.S.A. and which formulation should avoid the existence of any contractual pecuniary claims on our part against Jasco."
At the very end: "It has been definitely established once more that Buna is being brought in only for the raw materials of the Jasco contract."
JUDGE HEBERT:Mr. DuBois, pardon me, who is Ringer who has signed this contract, this memorandum, rather?
Mr. DuBOIS: I am sorry. He is an official of Farben.
JUDGE HEBERT:An official of Farben?
Mr. DuBOIS: That is right.
Now, the evidence will indicate beyond a doubt that these arrangements, understandings, between the parties were meticulously observed by Standard and, as Howard indicated, Standard was impressed with the spirit of good will on the part of Farben. Farben, on the other hand, continually misled Standard as to what they could expect to get from Farben, and Farben's every move was made in consultation with the Nazi Government and was directed, as we shall se, to strengthen Germany's technical position and to slow down research in the U.S.
DR.SILCHER (Counsel for Defendant von Knieriem): I object to the last statement made by the Prosecution. In my opinion that is argumentative. I ask that the last statement be stricken from the record.
THE PRESIDENT:We have said before that we accept statements made by counsel when about to offer evidence as indicating what counsel think the evidence will establish and as information to the Court as to the theory upon which they are offering the evidence. This Tribunal has had much experience to be prejudiced or misled by any statement made by counsel which is not substantiated by evidence.
Counsel need not be disturbed about that. The statements will be considered as indicating what the Prosecution thinks it can establish. Whether it does establish will be determined by the competent evidence that is introduced to the Tribunal.
We will grant you the same courtesy and privilege when you offer your evidence to tell us in advance what you think it is going to establish, but we tell you now that if you wish us to consider it as evidence you better establish it--and that applies to the Prosecution as well. Thank you very much.
DR. SILCHER:In consideration of your statements, Mr. COURT VI CASE VI President, I withdraw my motion that the passage be stricken.
THE PRESIDENT:You need not withdraw your statements. You were within your rights in expressing your views, and it is in the record; and we will let the record stand as it is, including the remarks of counsel for the Defense. It is perfectly satisfactory to us.
MR. DU BOIS:We next of fur in evidence NI-10547, appearing on page 110 of the English, page 93 of the German. We offer this as Prosecution Exhibit 952. It is a letter from Farben to Chemnyco which indicates that as early as Parch 1934 Farben was instructing its subsidiary m New York, which was negotiating with Du Pont on nitrogen matters, not to indicate the interests of the Nazi Government. And in the last sentence or two of this letter it states: "Particularly it is to be recommended that in negotiations with Du Pont this point should be avoided, if possible. We hope that shortly there will be a clarification which will correspond to our attitude up to now in regard to questions of this kind and, if possible, we should therefore not allow foreign industry to gain the impression that in this respect we are not free to negotiate."
The next document we offer in evidence is NI-10469, appearing at page 111 of the English and 94 of the German, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 953. It is a letter from Howard of Standard Oil to Teagle of Standard Oil concerning an agreement between Howard and Ter Meer not to bring outside organizations into the synthetic rubber project, From this letter we see that in 1935 Ter Meer was urging against bringing other organizations into the development of synthetic rubber because, as indicated on page 113 of the English and 96 of the German, this would entail giving them the benefit of a large amount of technical COURT VI CASE VI information which even more than the patent situation constitutes the proprietary value of the synthetic rubber project."
Further reference will be made to this point later on.
The next document in the book has already been introduced as Prosecution Exhibit 523; it is NI-5931, appearing on page 115 of the English and page 97 of the German. It is a memorandum of June 1935 of a conference between Farben and the Army Ordnance and Air Ministry officials at Ludwigshafen. Special attention is called to the paragraph numbered 4, on page 120 of the English and 104 of the German, entitled "Ensuring Secrecy of Developmental Work." Quoting: "The I.G. is bound by contract to an extensive exchange of experience with Standard. This position seems untenable as far as developmental work which is being carried out for the Reich Air Ministry is concerned."
"Therefore, the Reich Air Ministry will soon conduct an textensive examination of applications for patents of the I.G."
"Furthermore, the I.G. will suggest the necessary Security measures to the Reich Air Ministry under special consideration of the situation."
Now, at this point I would like to recall certain facts which were indicated in Exhibit 400, already introduced by the Prosecution. That was in book 26. This was the top secret record of the meeting of the Advisory Committee about questions of raw materials which you will recall was held in May of 1936 under the chairmanship of Goering, with the defendant Schmitz present.
You will recall that Goering stated that in the case of war Germany would not get one drop of oil from abroad, COURT VI CASE VI and that with the thorough motorization of Army and Navy the whole problem of conducting a was depended on oil.
And Goering also indicated serious import reductions in case of war and stated that rubber was Germany's weakest point. During that discussion it will also be recalled Keppler indicated that technical improvements were expected, and expressed special hope for certain American processes, and the defendant Schmitz indicated that. In the light of this, special attention is called to the next document which the Prosecution offers as its Exhibit 954.
This is NI-10437 appearing on page 121 of the English and 106 of the German. This conference related to maintaining secrecy on the improvements of I.G. processes for the production of motor fuels and lubricants. The necessity was stressed for keeping Farben processes for the production of fuels and airplaine gasoline secret, except to the extent already known by foreigners and authorized by the Wehrmacht.
Turning to page 122 of the English and page 108 of the German, under the heading "Iso-Octane - Maintaining Secrecy," I read: "It is possible for the foreigners, particularly the Americans, to produce Iso-Octane in considerable quantities, although on a different base (mineral cil). Under these circumstances, the maintaining of secrecy seems useless.
"With regard to Iso-Octane, too, it is desirable that the establishment of installations in Germany is kept secret. On the part of I.G. Farbenindustry, it was mentioned in this connection that as soon as Certain products were ready for delivery in larger quantities (as will be the case with ethylene lubricant as well as with COURT VI CASE VI Iso-Octane in the near future) the existence of production plants can hardly be kept secret.
If it does become known it would, however, lead to unpleasant international reactions in view of I.G. Farbenindustrie's obligations to exchange know-how. " "The state of knowledge for the production of aviation gasoline, iso-octane and ethylene-lubricant on 1 July 1937 is being fixed in cooperation between the Reich Air Ministry and I.G. Farbenindustrie."
And then the last paragraph: "In consideration of its exchange of know-how agreements, I.G. Farbenindustrie is permitted to inform its partners in the agreements in a cautious way shortly before the start of large-scale production that it intends to start a certain production of iso-octane and ethylene-lubricant. The impression is, however, not to be conveyed that this is a matter of large-scale experiments. Under no circumstances may statements on capacity be made."
The next document which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 955 is NI-10436 appearing on page 124 of the English and 110 of the German. It is a Farben memorandum by Hopkins of Standard Oil in July 1937 to the effect that the Hitler government probably does not look with favor to turning rubber over to foreign countries.
The next document which we offer as Prosecution Exhibit 956 is NI-10470 which is a letter from Fischer of Standard to Howard of Standard in August 1937, stating that Farben requests 10 tons of Butyl alcohol a month for experiments on Buna, indicating that Standard, in compliance with its obligations, was turning this over to Farben-
THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Du Bois, it is possible that some of counsel may have made some commitments to meet someone, COURT VI CASE VI or to use the telephone, or otherwise.