MR. DU BOIS:I ask that NI-5191, which is an affidavit of the Defendant von Schnitzler of 4 March 1947, which appears on page 107 of the English document book and page 97 of the German document book, be accepted as Prosecution Exhibit 40. In the affidavit in Document Book I, appearing on page 54 of the English document book and page 64 of the German document book, being an affidavit of the Defendant von Schnitzler of 18 March 1947, be accepted as Prosecution Exhibit No. 41. It is numbered NI-5196.
I would like at this point to read certain excerpts from these affidavits. The first affidavit that I would like to read from is NI-5191, which begins on page 107 of the English document book and page 97 of the German. There are a few paragraphs in the beginning of this affidavit which are incorporated in the other affidavits which I would like to read at this time.
"I was living near Frankfurt, Germany in late March 1945 when the American armed forces occupied the area. I was taken into custody on 7 May 1945 by the American authorities and I have remained in detention ever since that time, except for three periods when I was granted authority to be with my wife under house arrest. Daring the period front May until late Fall of 1945, I was regularly questioned by American and Allied investigators, particularly by the American investigators, Mr. Ritchin, Mr. Weisbrodt, Mr. Glaser, Mr. Linville, Mr. Hollander and Mr. Devine. During this period of investigation I was ordinarily brought from Preungesheim prison in Frankfurt, Germany to the Reichsbank building in Frankfurt nearly every day along with a number of other former officials of the I. G. Farbenindustrie. There, I and the other officials were asked to give information concerning the history of the I.G. Farbenindustrie and other matters either through interrogations or by writing up or dictating various statements concerning topics which were given to us by one or more of the investigators.
"It has always been my intention to give the truth according to the best of my knowledge and belief to the Allied investigators. I never intentionally gave false information of any kind.
The relationship between the investigators and me in Frankfurt during 1945 was very free and open and very cordial. In Praungesheim American soldierprisoners were also detained. On a number of occasions I felt that I was mistreated in the jail because of the dislike which certain of the soldiers had for me. When I reported some of these incidents to the investigators, they interceded on my behalf with some success and sometimes without success. The investigators generally stated that they wanted me to give my best recollection of events without access to documents. Except for a few occasions when my recollection was refreshed by being shown a document, the statements I made and the interrogations to which I subscribed were based entirely upon my recollection and belief as of the time I was interrogated and made the particular statements. At no time during the investigations of 1945 was I prevented from correcting any statement which I made if thereafter I thought I had made an error. The typewritten statements which I signed were made in the following manner: I would first be asked to give information on a certain topic. Thereafter I would go to a room where I could be alone and write up the matter in longhand or else made longhand notes which I later used as a basis for dictating a statement to a German or American stenographer who took English stenography. Sometimes it took me less than a day to write up some of the statements. With some of the longer statements, however, it took me as long as three days to complete them. After the stenographer or typist reduced the statement to writing I went over the statement to make any corrections and then certified to the truth of the statement. The records of the interrogations were made as follows: Sometimes the questions and answers were immediately reduced to writing as originally made. Sometimes, after a period of discussion between the interrogator and me, a question or answer would be written down for the record which summarized the results of the matters discussed. Whichever of these methods was followed in these interrogations, I thereafter went over the written record of the interrogation to correct any errors and thereafter certified to the truth of the matters stated in the interrogation.
In October I was removed from prison and placed under house arrest and thereafter re-arrested again. Mr. Edelman, CIC Finance Chief, informed me this was done on orders of higher headquarters because I was in the category of mandatory arrest. At that time I was informed in writing by Mr. Devine that the reason for my further imprisonment was not because of any failure to cooperate with the American authorities. This same letter states that my assistance from an information gathering standpoint has been invaluable.
"After those interrogations in 1945 were concluded, I was detained in a number of prisons or detention camps along with leading officials of the I.G. Farbenindustrie. After discussing a number of matters concerning which I had given information with my colleagues, I came to the conclusion that I gave some erroneous information to the investigators in 1945. In no instance do I feel that I gave erroneous information intentionally. What I stated and concluded in the statements and interrogations in 1945 represented the truth as I saw it then to the best of my recollection and belief. I account for any errors which I made entirely for the following reasons: After the collapse of Germany I was in a state of great mental depression. I felt clearly that the Hitler regime had caused the ruin of Germany and of a great deal of Europe. Under these circumstances I associated some events together which I do not now feel should have been associated together in making some of the conclusions which I made. Moreover, I was asked to give my recollection and my conclusions concerning a number of events which were connected with I.G. Farben in the technical or in other fields where my duties had not given me a full insight into the true facts and concerning which I could then, in 1945, obtain no assistance by reference to the I.G. files. What I stated to the investigators in 1945 was true to the best of my recollection and belief at that time. However, since then I have talked to some of my colleagues who were better informed of these matters than I was and I must conclude I made certain errors which I certified as the truth to the Allied investigators.
"Between 18 February 1947 and the present time, representatives of the Office of the Chief of Counsel for War Crimes showed me many of the statements and interrogations to which I had subscribed in 1945. I have been asked to point out any falsehoods or errors which I made in these statements or interrogations. I have stated to them under oath that I had made no false statements, because the statements I made were true to the best of my knowledge and belief at the time that I made them in 1945. However, where I unintentionally made errors in these statements I have pointed out those errors. The errors I now find after re-reading the statements or interrogations mentioned below are set forth below:"
And then in this affidavit and in following affidavits there appear a reference to the various statements made in '45, and then toward the latter part of the affidavit appear certain qualifications.
I will read a few excerpts from these statements, and after I read the statement that was made in '45 I will follow with the qualification.
On page 115 of English Document Book No. 2, which is page 108 in the German document book:
"Thus everything as far as the general structure of I.G. was concerned remained unchanged, and every month added something now to the existing potential. The industrial position of I.G. in general had no parallel with any other enterprise. Vereinigte Stahlworke employed more people and the State-owned Hermann Goering Works had collected so many different enterprises that their capital and their turnover might even have been higher than that of I.G., but both their domains of activity, their earning capacity and scientific performance, was incomparably smaller than what I.G. could show in these domains. Compared with the great companies abroad, even in the United States, no single individual company had so large a field of progressive scientific enterprise as I.G....."
And then on page 109 appears this -- pardon me, it is 116 of the English document book.
It is 109 of the German document book. "This statement still appears to be entirely true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, except that.
..." I do not believe that any of the exceptions relate to what I just read.
And, reading from the affidavit which appears in Document Book No. 1, page 54 of the English document book and 64 of the German document book, the first paragraph makes reference to the paragraphs which introduce the previous affidavit, and the first paragraph concludes with the statement:
"When I subscribed to these statements or interrogations in 1945, the matters to which I subscribed were true to the best of my knowledge and belief at that time. The errors I now find after re-reading the statements or interrogations mentioned below are set forth below after the text of each of the statements or interrogations."
Continuing on the same page:
"The I.G. by force had to follow the general development in Germany. Whatever government ruled Germany, the key position of the I.G. in the whole chemical field, undisputed simce I.G.'s foundation in 1925, had to play and always played the decisive role in everything which was connected with chemistry. I remember a remark of Stressmann's made to me in 1927: What have I as a trump in my hands apart of you, the I.G., and the coal people?"
"That I.G. would follow a line which was not in conformity with the line of the government was simply unimaginable, and that I.G. could refract from an order given by the government or take the attitude of an open or clandestine opposition was out of the question -- even at a time when Germany was a democratic state and government measures could be openly criticized.
"Thus, I.G. was 'governmental' under Stressmann as well as under Bruening, 2nd under Papen."
And a little further down, on page 55 of the English book and 65 of the German:
"The money was being taken but the result Was more or less null, and up to the last time of the war I.G. was always suspected of being 'a state in the state' and the dismemberment of I.G. never left the clandestine Party program. On the other hand, the Party, in the form of 'Adolf Hitler Spende' and 'Winterhilfswerk' (WHW), and many other ways, converted the subventions given formerly as a sort of bribery into a legal claim."
Later on in this same excerpt, same statement, in '45, on page 56 of the English book and 66 of the German:
"The whole development of I.G. in the years beginning with 1934 and accelerated since the end of 1936 is entirely due to the close teamwork with the government and the Wehrmacht."
A little further down: "Practically the whole augmentation in the turnover of I.G. from a little over one billion marks to three billions in 1943 is a one hundred percent result of the rearmament and the war policy of the German government."
Again on page 67 of the English book, at the bottom -- also at the bottom of page 67 of the German document book: "Apart of this technical situation, the development of I.G. during the last twelve years can't be separated from the government's foreign policy." It should be page 57 (of the English document book).
And on page 64 of the English book, 74 of the German book, the middle of the page:
"As I stated in the beginning of this report, since 1934 the Wehrmacht, first being only an additional factor to the relations having always existed between I.G. and the different Ministerien, more and more developed to be the decisive, or at least the most important, factor."
And now reading from this same affidavit the qualifications -- I am sorry, there is one more from that same statement -- one more excerpt I would like to read. Page 66 of the English book, 76 of the German book:
"With the growing of the military--" It starts back on the previous Court VI - Case VI page with a brief statement:
"To summarize, the following must be stated: 1) With the growing of the military interest in the government's program, I.G.'s relations to the Wehrmacht personally became an additional factor in I.G.'s official relations to the different other ministries. By and by, the Wehrmacht became by far the most important one, and with the beginning of the Four Year Plan the investment policy of the I.G. was not to be separated any more from the policy of the Wehrmacht. Nearly all investments were made directly or indirectly for the Wehrmacht. I.G. was on the whole a loyal and complaisant partner of the Wehrmacht. That the Wehrmacht was not a typical Nazi institution and only followed itself in material the line prescribed by the Party is well known. The higher officers doing their duty as law-abiding officers were not Nazis by conviction -- they have proved it on July 20th, 1944.
"2) I.G. followed the 'Grossraum-Politik' of the government because there was no other economic policy to be made.
"That I.G. itself would have preferred a policy of 'most favored nation treatment' and 'world-wide trade' became a pure theory and could not lead to any real consequences.
"3) In the handling with Party matters, I.G. acted after the policy 'muddling through' with the result that in the last it always had to yield.
"4) Thus, in acting as it had done, the I.G. contracted a great responsibility and constituted a substantial - and in the chemical domain - decisive help to Hitler's foreign policy which led to war and the ruin of Germany.
"5) Thus I must conclude that I.G. is largely responsible for Hitler's policy."
The qualifications to the statements which I have just read begin on this same page, page 66 of the English book and 77 of the German book. I will now read I believe all the qualifications which the defendant von Schnitzler made to these statements:
"This statement--" referring to the statement from which I have Court VI - Case VI been reading excerpts -- "still appears to me to be entirely true to the best of my knowledge and belief, except that:
"a. Generally speaking, it does not sufficiently separate the prewar from the war period---"
THE PRESIDENT:Pardon me, counsel. We have this statement directly in front of us and, unless you think it is highly important to repeat it for the record, I can assure you that the Tribunal will read it thoroughly. We have its connection with the statement. Perhaps we can save a bit of time -- unless there is something in particular that you want to emphasize.0
MR. DUBOIS:I would just like to read -- I will just read one statement which appears later, on page 70 of the English book and page 80 of the German book, which begins:
"On page 11, paragraph 3, sub-headings 4 and 5" -- which were part of the summaries which I read -- "I must now make the following qualifications. I believe that I and I.G. Farben, as a whole have contracted a great responsibility before God in that our acts constituted a substantial help to Hitler's foreign policy. However, I did not mean that I accept any responsibility in the legal sense. To the best of my conviction, we never did anything unlawful against humanity. But we were in this terrible boat with Hitler, and since we have participated in handling this boat, we have a responsibility before God -- and consequently before mankind."
The last affidavit, NI-5197, appearing on page 67--
THE PRESIDENT:Of which book, please?
MR. DUBOIS:On the second document book -- I am sorry. It begins on page 58 of the second German document book.
THE PRESIDENT:We understand counsel to say 67 of the English book.
MR. DUBOIS:Sixty-seven of the English Document Book No. 2. The affidavit begins -- I will just read one excerpt from this affidavit which appears on page 89 of the English book and page 80 of the German book, entitled "Summary by von Schnitzler".
"In 1934 the Wehrmacht became important and, with increased tempo after 1936, the Wehrmacht became the prominent factor in the whole picture. Since 1934, a strong movement forinvestments in our plants for commodities of decisive military importance became more and more pronounced with the main objective of increasing the military potential of Germany. At first, autarchic principles to make Germany independent of importation from abroad was one of the leading objectives. Since the declaration of the Four Year Plan in 1936, this movement took an entirely military character and military reasons stood in the foreground. Hand-in-hand with this, the relations between I.G. and the Wehrmacht became more and more intimate, and a continuous union between I.G. officials on the one side and the Wehrmacht representatives on the other side was the consequence of it."
The qualification to that is rather short and I would like to read that. It appears a little later:
"In the summary by von Schnitzler, beginning at the bottom of page 4, I over-exaggerated the degree of I.G.'s relations with the Wehrmacht before the outbreak of the war. In the beginning it was not the Wehrmacht but rather the REM and the Four Year Plan which acted as representatives of the Reich in the different dealings with synthetic oil, buna, synthetic fibers, a.s.c., and the Wehrmacht was primarily not directly engaged in these so-called 'autarchy dealings'. Of course, the Wehrmacht was highly interested in them and made tests with all the products contained in that program."
Some question has been raised on the numbering of these exhibits. I had numbered the von Schnitzler affidavits NI-5191 in Book 2 and NI5196 in Book I as 40 and 41 with the understanding that 38 and 39 had been used at least for identification purposes in Book III.
THE PRESIDENT:We have the exhibits so numbered, except that I have not checked to see whether what you say with reference to Book III is correct. The last number in Book III that was used was 38, as we have it.
MR. DUBOIS:The Secretary General's last number is apparently 37.
THE PRESIDENT:In Book III, Document D-204, which is further identified as USA-768, is identified as Exhibit 38.
MR. DUBOIS:That is what I have, Your Honor. Apparently the Secretary General has an indication that there was some objection made there and that that had not been finally accepted.
THE PRESIDENT:That may be true as we are presently advised, but the exhibit does bear that number and I think we are in harmony on that.
MR. DUBOIS:Fine. Well, then I ask that the document in Book 2, NI-5191, be numbered 39 and that the document in Book I, NI-5196, be numbered 40.
Now, proceeding with a few documents in Document Book 2 which I had not offered before pending the clarification with defense counsel of this question of the introduction of documents which have been sworn to or certified by witnesses who could be called to Nuernberg. The map on the wall, a copy of which is in this document book, indicates the number of subsidiaries or lesser participations which I.G. Farben held in various countries throughout the world. These figures are based upon two lists of participations: I.G. Farben's participations in Germany and I.G. Farben's foreign participations.
THE PRESIDENT:Pardon me, in order that there may be no confusion, are you speaking of the map on the wall as being document NI-9765?
MR. DU BOIS: NC-9763.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, 63 is correct.
MR. DU BOIS:Now these figures which are contained on these maps are based on these participations and we offer first a listing of I.G Farben domestic participations together with the affidavit of former employees of Farben, certifying as to the source of this list. I ask that the document NI-9286 be numbered as prosecution exhibit 42 and NI-9503 as prosecution exhibit, I am sorry, it should be 41 and NI-9503 as prosecution exhibit 42. And then the list of I.G. Farben foreign participations, which have affidavits and certificates at the end, I ask that it be accepted as prosecution exhibit 43.
THE PRESIDENT:Do you refer to....
MR. DU BOIS:NI-9540 appearing on page 22 of the English document book. As prosecution exhibits 44, 45 and 46. I offer NI-10033 on page 49-A of this document book and NI-10034 appearing on page 49-B, NI-9445 appearing on page 49-C. The last document being an affidavit by Ernst Struss giving the source of the information for the previous document.
As prosecution exhibits 47 and 48 I offer NI-16029 and NI-10030 appearing on pages 50 and 51 respectively, which are charts of plants in one case owned and operated by Farben in Germany as of 1944 and in the other case owned and operated by Dynamit Nobel, A.G. Both of these charts have been certified to by Dr. Struss. I would like to make one statement with respect to this last chart. Dr. Struss was somewhat troubled that in that chart the way in which he showed the Wasag plant as being connected with DAG -- might lead to some misimpression. He had sent me, which I got this morning, an affidavit in which he points out that he has learned that I.G. had a 52% interest in Wasag, through Mersburg GmbH. and 25% in Donauchomie, consequently a majority interest in the Wasag was held by I.G. and not DAG. I will have copies of this affidavit made in English and German and distribute them as supplements to this document to the court and defense.
THE PRESIDENT:Now counsel, going back to your document book 2, you have not yet given the map of which a reproduction is on the wall and which is identified as NI-9763 a number; is that Correct?
MR. DUBOIS:That is right. For convenience sake, it is based on documents already in the book, but I would like to ask that that be numbered prosecution exhibit 49.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well.
MR. DUBOIS:And I offer NI-7239, which appears on page 53 of the English document book, which is an affidavit of Paul Denicker concerning a 1926 agreement between Farben and DAG, as prosecution exhibit 50.
I believe that concludes the document book 2, except for the affidavit of Werner Hagert whom we can put on the stand at the appropriate time. We will discuss with defense counsel whether they would like him put on when this is introduced or be put on later as we have several affidavits of his to be offered.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well.
MR. DUBOIS:Mr. Amchan will proceed with further documents in document book 3.
MR. AMCHAN:On book 3, if your Honors please, first some purely formal matters, I think the record should show that defendant Schmitz' counsel is present in court.
THE PRESIDENT:That may be assumed unless there is a showing to the contrary.
MR. AMCHAN:In document book 3, NI-4833 is before your Honors as prosecution exhibit 26 for identification and NI-5170 is before your Honors as prosecution exhibit 27 for identification. We ask that they both be marked in evidence as prosecution exhibits 26 and 27 respectively.
THE PRESIDENT:So ordered.
MR. AMCHAN:With respect to prosecution exhibit 37 being D-203, which appears on page 64, we understand that is in evidence.
Document No. D-204 we now offer in evidence, which appears on page 74.
That document is a memorandum by the defendant Krupp von Bohlen with respect to the meeting of 20 February 1933 where Hitler addressed the select group of industrialists.
Now we indicated at the other session that with respect to documents 203 and 204 that these documents were before the IMT. Counsel for the defense seemed to have raised some question on the facts. We have a certificate which we will give the secretary, by the custodian of the IMT records, certifying to the effect that the two documents just identified were officially before the Tribunal.
In addition for the record, we should like to read from the official record of the International Military Tribunal, which is contained in volume 2 of the Blue book, page 226 being the afternoon session of 23 November 1945. This is a statement of the prosecution and I quote:
In a memorandum dated 22 February 1933, and that refers to document D-204, Gustav Krupp describes this meeting briefly and in the memorandum wrote that he had expressed to Hitler the gratitude of the twenty five industrialists present at the meeting of February 20 1933.
Again reading from the record, "I might point out to the Court, that this memorandum together with the report of the speech of Hitler, which is Document D-203, were found by the British and the United States Armies in the personal files of the defendant Krupp." Now the original of these documents, we have ascertained, are in the possession of the British and they are not located in Germany. We shall endeavor to get a certificate from the British custodian and the appropriate affidavits of the effect that those two documents appeared from the personal files of Krupp. In the meantime for the record, we are laying the foundation to indicate that they were introduced in the International Military Tribunal without objection on the statement and apparently on the certificate made that those documents came as captured documents from Krupp.
I suggest, your Honors, this might be an appropriate time for recess.
THE PRESIDENT:It is only two minutes until time for lunch. The Tribunal will rise at this time.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
Afternoon Session (The Tribunal reconvened ate 1330 hours.
)
THE MARSHAL:The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT:Are the defendants in the dock?
THE MARSHAL:May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present save the defendants Breggemann, Wurste and Schmitz absent due to illness.
DR.BOETTCHER: (Counsel forthe defendant Krauch. ) Dr. Boettcher. Mr. President, the prosecution has intended to call the witness Hagert today. We have ascertained that an affidavit of the witness Hagert is not only contained in volume 2, but also in volume 5. These two affidavits will probably be submitted by the prosecution. In view of this fact, we have reached an agreement with the prosecution to the effect that the witness Hagert will only be heard after all affidavits, which are to be submitted from him, are available to the Tribunal and are submitted as evidence. We would be grateful if the Tribunal would agree to that method.
THE PRESIDENT:The Tribunal has no objection to that procedure if it is satisfactory to counsel.
MR. DUBOIS:In view of this, I would like to have marked as prosecution exhibit 51 the N. I.-9052 appearing on page 61.
THE PRESIDENT:Of which volume, please?
MR. DUBOIS:Volume 2, document book 2.
THE PRESIDENT:The Tribunal is not clear as to what number you wish to assign to this affidavit?
MR. DUBOIS:I understood it would be 51.
THE PRESIDENT:Thank you.
MR. AMCHAN:Continuing, if Your Honors please, with document book 3 with respect to the certificate of the custodian of the records of the International Military Tribunal which we referred to earlier this morning, I ask that it be marked for identification as prosecution exhibits 52 for identification.
Then identify the following six documents as being in his custody as official records of the I. M. T.; Document D-151, Document D-203, D-204, D-317 and P. S.-2828.
The documents which we are about to offer relate to the charges set forth in paragraphs 10 to 13 ofthe indictment and it relates to the charges of the financial support given by I.G. Farben to Hitler at the beginning of 1933. We offer in evidence as prosecution exhibit 53, N.I. 406 which appears on page 75 of the document book being an interrogation of Hyalmar Schacht on 20 July 1945 with respect to the occurances at the meeting of 20 February 1933. I should like very briefly to read excerpts from his interrogation from the document book at page 87.
THE PRESIDENT:Will you give the German reference please?
MR. AMCHAN:Sorry, I don't have it just now but I will time it accordingly. Page 105 of the German:
Question; "Let us then direct our attention to February and March 1933. I have been told by Goering and by Funk and by Baron von Schnizler and also by Thysscn, that there was a meeting held in thehouse of Goering of certain prominent German industrialists at which you were also present in 1933. This was after Hitler became chancellor, but before the elections of that spring. Hitler came into the meeting and made a short speech and left. Then, according to the testimony of Funk, you passed the hat." This is Schacht testifying: "You asked the industrialists to support the Nazi Party financially to the tune of approximately seven, eight, nine or ten million marks. Do you recall that?
Answer: "I recall that meeting very well. And I have answered the same question to major Tilley. It must be in one of my former memorandums or in the hearings done by Major Tilley. As far a s I remember, the meeting was not in Goering's house, but in some hotel room, I think, or some other more public room. After Hitler had made his speech the old Krupp von Bohlen answered Hitler and expressed COURT VI CASE VI the unanimous feeling of the industrialists to support Hitler.
After that I spoke for the financial part only, not on political principle or intentions. And the amount which I collected was three million marks. The apportionment amongst the industrialists was made not by me, but by they themselves and the payments thereafter were made to the bank of Delbrueck Schickler. " We offer next, us Prosecution Exhibit 54, NI 9764, being an affidavit of Schacht, dated 18 August 1947, identifying the previous document book.
There is a typographical error in the transcription and I should therefore, like to read the corrected second paragraph into the record. The paragraph should read; "I made all of the statements appearing in this interrogation to Clifford Haynning, afinancial investigator of the American forces, of my own free will and without coercion. I have reread this interrogation today and can state that all of the facts contained therein are true to my best knowledge and belief And this now appears in Schact's handwriting :"....with the exception that the Golden Swastika did not entail honorary membership of the Party", referring to page 34 of his interrogation.
JUDGE MORRIS:Mr. prosecutor, I believe that was paragraph 3 of the affidavit rather than paragraph 2.
MR. AMCHAN:You're entirely correct, Your Honor. Paragraph 3.
We offer next in evidence, as Prosecution Exhibit 55, NI 9550, being an affidavit of Schacht, of 12, August 1947, concerning the collection and distribution of the funds which were collected after the February 20 metting. It appear s at page 111 and there are two pertinent paragraphs which I believe it would be helpful to read.
Paragraph 2:
"The amounts contributed by the participants in the meeting of 20 February 1933 at Goering's house were paid by them to the Bankers Delbrueck Schickler & Co., Berlin, to the credit of an amount 'Nationale Treuhand' (which may be translated as National Trusteeship'). It was arranged that I was entitled to dis pose of this account, which I administered as a trustee, an d that in case of my death, or that in case the trusteeship should be terminated in any other way, Rudolf Hess should be entitled to dispose of the account.
"I disposed of the amounts of this account by writing out checks to Mr. Hess. I donot know what Mr. Hess actually did with the money.
"On 4 April 1933 I closed the account with Delbrueck Schickler & Co. and had the balance transferred to the ' Account Ic' with the Reichsbank which read in my name. Later on I was ordered directly by Hitler, who was authorized by the assembly of 20 February 1933 to dipose of the amounts collected, or through Hess, his deputy, to pay the balance of about 600,000 Marks to Ribbentrop."
We offer next in evidence, if Your Honors please, as Prosecution Exhibit 56,NI 391, which is the file from the Bankers Delbrueck Schickler & Company indicating the correspondence and the accounts with respect to the fund. It appears at page 112 of the document book and I should like to direct Your Honors' attention to page 114. It is the authorization by I. G. Farben to Schickler and says:
"We are informing you herewith that we have authorized the Dresdner Bank in Frankfurt/M., to pay you tomorrow RM 400,000 which you will use in favor of the Account 'Nationals Trouhand' (National Trusteeship) On page 111.
.....
With respect to the letter I just read, the signature on behalf of I. G. Farben is by Solck, who is a deceased Vorstand member.
On page 112, if Your Honors please, is the transcript of the account of the bank. I particularly direct Your Honors! atten-tion to the entry marked 23 February 1953, stating...... The entry indicates under 28 February 1933;
" Feb. 28 I. G. Farbenindustrie A.G. Frankfurt/M March 1, RM 400,000" and I respectfully call Your Honors' attention to the fact that this is the largest single contribution made by any single individual, as appears from the account, and I would also ask Your Honors to please notes the transfers of the monies at the various times Rudolf Hess, particularly the transfer on March 2 of 300, 000 which was three days before the critical election of March 5.
We next offer in evidence, if Your Honors please, as Prosecution Exhibit 57, NI 9784, which appears at page 115 of the English document book. It is a photostatic copy of an exhibit which was before a United States Senate Investigating Committee. The document is a report from a foreign representative of Dupont and Company to his home office in Now York and the report refers to conversations which he had with Bosch, the chairman of the I. G. Farben Vorstand in July 1933. We offer that in support of the general allegations and charges in the indictment as to the alliance between industry and Hilter. We should like, very briefly, to call Your Honors' attention, to page 117 of the document book.